bush vs kerry - you decide

so there's this web site here
wher you can 'vote' for Bush or Kerry, and it shows who is winning by country.

So yeah it statitically incorrect and blah blah, but lets just say that Kerry is kicking ass.

Oh, and NZ HATES bush - 90% of people so far are with Kerry, 9% are grooving with Bush.

 

My gosh, all countries but two have gone for Kerry. Does the rest of the world hate Bush that much? That is somewhat encouraging.

 

meh they both suck.. if i was a voting american id vote for kerry though.. might as well give him a chance to see if he screws up.. and bush definately dont deserve to be in office.. atleast kerry hasnt fucked up yet..

 

thankfully, the world doesnt vote for our president, or god knows how fucked we'd be. but yeah, you can tell how wrong this scale is. It has Bush losing 25% to 75% in the US....last poll here has bush up by 5% over kerry. The internet tends to be a pretty liberal community though, so its expected.


Anyways, the amount of hate for bush is scary. He is more hated than hitler ever was, and thats just disgusting and wrong.


I hope kerry wins, but it looks like bush is going to take it. I just hope there is no fiasco like 2000, thats the worst possible thing that could happen.

 

well, hopefully Kerry will come through.
I don't know about Bush being more hated than Hitler - but obviously there were no internet polls to test that at the time

Yeah, it's horribly statistically fucked BUT even though it counts for nothing I still think it's...interesting.

And that thing about the polls - the only ones reported here have them neck and neck, like a 1% difference. That's pretty funny, the difference in reportage I mean.
But I guess no one will know for a few more days.

 

I don't think its that suprising that apparently Bush is hated more then Hitler... As Sophie said there weren't any internet polls then... Also, the world was larger in the figurative sense, we live in a global villge. We, in new zealand, know much much more about whats going on in America then we did 60 years ago.

 

the very fact of comparing the two is horrible. Comparing a man who started a war killing 40 million people and who exterminated 12 million people to someone who attacked iraq. It seems horrifically unjust to compare the two, but thats my opinion.


I must admit, i find it hilarious(or maybe just ironic) that bush's best asset is his perceived likability by the american people, yet so many people around the world despise him and hate him with every ounce of their being. Although, a lot of americans loathe him deeply too.

 

coz he is fighting for the Americans, he is not fightng for us.

each person trys to protect themselves, and the world feels threatened by bush, so we try to protect ourselves. but the US feels safer with bush, so they try to protect themselves (although that last sentence was an assumption, i actually think you feel more threatened by the world since bush has gotten in)

Alltaken

 

you, as a kiwi, honestly feel threatened by bush? People started despising bush once he upheld congress's vote to reject kyoto(maybe the only decent thing bush did in office)...it snowballed from there. Is helen clark fighting for americans? Leaders of governments are to take care of their own country first.


I dont feel more threatened by the world because of bush. I worry that the west is being torn apart, but thats been happening since the cold war ended when western europe no longer needed america. Radical islamists have hated america long before bush and will hate us long after. I dont think any country is going to attack america anytime soon.

 

yes i honestly do feel more threatened since bush has gotten in, the entire kyoto thing was one thing which scares me (of many) as it was one of the only things that provided hope of the World ever agreeing to care about the world as somthing we need to protect.

and yes each country should protect themselves, however currently the US is in a very unsafe position, its allies are limited, its policys promote retaliation attacks..... i think by "protecting itself" (in the wron way) it has become more unsafe. if that makes sense.

but i agree each should be protecting itself, sometimes it works better to do it through friends, and co-operation, rather than digging you feet in for an argument.

well what about terrorism?

i don't think that any country will attack america for a long time, it would be suicide, however terrorism is somthing you are going to need to face for a long time, as it can be attacks from groups of people rather than from governments, so there is no stopping them, or retaliating.

it spans across boarders and ethnic groups.

your next terrorists in the US, i feel may not be islamic.

i am not trying to attack your country, just stating what i feel could be the future with current trends (especially with a bush presidency for the next 4 years)

Alltaken

 

What do you feel threatened by?

Kyoto was clearly anti american....130 countries were allowed to pollute to their hearts content, including india, china and brazil..but america had to be restricted? the EU could play with their population instead of taking each country individually to get them more 'pollution points.' The fact that countries like ireland would have been ALLOWED TO POLLUTE MORE under kyoto is somehow mind boggling.

I think reducing pollution is a great idea, but it has to be a cross the board and not a way to gimp american businesses. The US senate voted 95-0 to reject it, the kyoto was horrifically anti american.

i think across the board cuts are the best way...everyone cuts back 5% or whatever to reach their goals..that is fair and affects everyone, and doesnt hinder just america.

edit: I agree that iraq will probably cause more harm than good in the immediate future for america. Hopefully it doesnt turn out to be a horrific mistake, for all of our sakes.

Well, terrorism is nothing new...islamic radicals have been preaching death to america(and the west) for a long, long time. I dont think thats bush's fault, though he probably pissed off a lot more moderate people than we had before. At the end of the day, they will hate us for as long as we support israel...and i dont see that stopping anytime soon...kerry and others have been talking extensively about taking measures to protect israel..this spits in the face of the terrorists..they'll try to attack us as much under kerry as bush, IMO.

The overwhelming odds of the next attack on america would by islamist radicals. Two attacks on the wtc, uss cole, two US embassies in africa etc etc were all by islamists..the only recent one i can think of which wasnt was the oklahoma city bombing which was 2 white guys.

and NP lol, you can criticize america and bush all you want i dont care, honest criticism is always welcome.

 

kyoto i understand pretty well, i don't think you do.

the fact that Kyoto took into account PAST POLLUTION, is a good thing.

countries such as india were given more leyway because they are considered developing countries, whereas the US was given less because it is developed and has polluted in the past.

kyoto was created to stop hypocracy, if china, or india were required to stop burning wood, then they would be like "damn the US burnt wood for years when they were in the same situation as us, why can't we now"

also you do realise that the US creates over 1/4 of the worlds pollution yet is only 5% of the worlds population. lets ahve a GOOD HARD THINK ABOUT IT.

the US would need to reduce its pollution by approx 600% to even be equal to the rest of the world.

seriously you have nothing to argue about, you have had a free pollution reign for the last 100 years, and now when OTHER COUNTRIES are needing to reduce there pollution BECAUSE OF YOUR CREATION, that is unfair.

why should a country like zimbabwee need to reduce its pollution when the problem was created by YOU?

clean your own mess before demanding others to clean it for you.

if you would rather a fuller and more detailed view of how the kyoto protocol was set up then i would be glad to give you one.

Alltaken

 

round of applause for Doug. Yes, the Kyoto protocol is a good thing.
Past pollution is terrible, especially seeing as people then knew fuck all about CFCs and other such delights.

 

Kyoto would have definitely hindered more than just the American economy, it just happens that America is the greatest producer of environmentally damaging dangerous waste. I tend to agree with Doug's comments.

So... ...uummmm... ...huzzah! ?

 

Developing nations? Yeah, lets let them pollute our world to hell! who cares as logn as its not america?

No, if the world tells them to stop burnign wood...they would say..fuck you..just like america. But why not join it? America business will be weakened, they can move in and pollute us to hell. But who cares? Its not america doing it.

We also produce over 1/4th the worlds output. Yes..lets think about it.

I'd love to know where you got this figure from... US is 24% of world pollution..china is around 15%...EU 14%...somehow those numbers dont quite add up.

Yeah, lets destroy american business, but i have nothing to argue about. Remember, america is 24% of CO2 emissions, that means the rest of the world is 76%. But america ruined the world.

it was created by us? Uh, yeah, somehow, the 24% of US emmissions has destroyed the world..the other 76% created by the rest of the world didnt do any harm...come on, you dont mean that.

I think the rest of the world should do that. Considering almost NONE of the EU is going to meet their goal of reducing the pollution, i consider anyone criticizing america quite hypocritical.

Please do.

Somehow, the fact that the rest of the world can pollute us to hell is GOOD for the world. Ok

Russia gets USSR level rates, yet their economy collapsed and they are nowhere near USSR lvl emissions..yeah thats fair.

China, the worlds number 2 polluter can continue to pollute the world. Ok.

Russia can pollute more, cause that makes SO MUCH SENSE! Pollute more to lower pollution levels...right
Somehow this is all fair.

No offense, but do you really wonder why so many americans raise their nose to the rest of the world? Listen to yourself. America is the problem, america destroyed the world. Christ, YOU polluting is destroying the world too. Pollution is a collective thing. American pollution didnt destroy the world. THE WORLD'S POLLUTION is destroying the world. Not everything negative in the world is america's fault, you know.

The US has said numerous times it is comitted to lowering emission rates, but not at the expense of our economy to the benefit of others.

Edit: Everyone should have to reduce greenhouse emissions..it may suck for developing nations, but it is wrong, and unfair to expect americans to take the majority of the blow because we were an industrialized nation before the others. Sucks? Yes. Effective? Most definitely.

 

china has a popolation of over 1 billion people. that gives it the right to pollute 3-4 times more than the US.

the US pollutes 24%, yet is only 5% of the worlds population.

simple maths huh? why do you think the kyoto protocol was set out to destroy you? it just happens that you will be the most effected.

its not our fault that the US has put itself into this position.

as for your coment on the US producing 25% of the worlds output, this is untrue. most US products are made in china, japan, taiwan, afganistan....

Nike for example makes all its shoes in 3rd world countrys.

however the US does posses more than 80% of the worlds weath, this means that the US would technically be the least effected by any economic effects from kyoto.

if you wish to come to the NZ forum, then perhaps you should try to understand our POV slightly more.

take your pride out of the equation and try to look at the math.

Doug

 

Only in your opinion...

25-30% of the worlds output...we've been over this..

Yes it is, we produce 1/4th the worlds output, we get 1/4th the worlds pollution rate..seems fair.

edit: Because so many other countries are offered loopholes. 130 or so nations are exempt because they are developing..who cares that china is the number 2 polluter in the world? the EU can play with their numbers. Russia gets USSR lvl emissions, even though they are NOWHERE near the same level of industrialization as the USSR. These are simply unfair. The whole entire protocol needs to be redone. Everyone should have to cut back. You cant expect american to take a cut to their standard of living if you arent willing to take one yourself.

Untrue!? US GDP is 11.5ish trillion..world gdp is 40 trillion. Yes, many american businesses have setup offshore to avoid costs, and will continue to go off shore under kyoto(thus making china pollute EVEN MORE). Are you considering nikes chinese now?

Whoa!? what kinda logic is that? We would be the most severly hit by kyoto. the EU can play with numbers and divide up its responsibilities over the whole EU. EU nations sohuld be taken individually, not collectively.

I think i have been more than fair. You have said america created global warming and is solely responsible for the problem. That is simply flat out wrong and dishonest. Every country in the world is responsible. Why do you completely disregard the fact that the rest of the world produces 76% of pollution?

Pride? I dont know where that is coming from. I have a vested interest in what happens to the american economy. It is horrifically unfair that other countries should be allowed to pollute at current rates and even pollute MORE while americans have to reduce to such a great extent.

edit: lets also remember that australia flat out rejected Kyoto like america.

No one wants to destroy the world, we just want a FAIR solution.

edit: I found this interesting, NZ will be a seller of 'pollution units' until 2012..supposedly this will add 1 billion dollars to the NZ economy. Does it honestly seem fair to you, that countries such as yours, have the right to pollute MORE if you chose to? How does this solve the problem? If America joins Kyoto, we would be forced to buy up pollution units from places like you and ireland. Kyoto makes money for you, it hurts america badly. How can you honestly ask me to look at it from your POV, when it has no effect on you? Shouldnt you look at it from america's POV?

We both want the same thing.

 

GDP has nothing to do with sellable and real world goods being produced (it has fake good to such as law, design, ideas...). it is not a reflection on exported good, and is not a reflection upon efficiency either.

the GDP is a highly flawed rating system. it is geared 100% around mesuring consumption within a nation (most us produced things are sold within the US), the nation that uses the most gets the highest GDP. its effectivly (as of current) a marker of how much a country consumes and pollutes.

the fact is that if the US is using 24% of the worlds goods (as you say the GDP is over 1/4 of the world GDP) then is this not being greedy, why do you think that 5% of the world should expect to get 24% of the worlds goods?

there are somthing like 1 car per every two people in the US (don't know the exact figures)

but in china there might be only 1 car for every 100 people. does this mean that the US should be able to pollute 150 million cars worth, and china only pollute 10 million cars worth?

consumption is the problem. you cannot justify pollution based on consumption. you must set a limit for pollution then base your consumption (or efficeincy) around that.

when we put in strict pollutin laws, then efficent cars will become economically viable, you will psuh technology into a new direction and a enw future, we will start the environmental age, we have had the industrial age, the tecnological age, the computer age, whats next.

it will open more jobs and more highly skilled jobs (scientists... engineers, designers...) by craeting these limits as things will need to be pushed. it will infact help the US economy if it trys.

but currently germany is the one capitalising on things, with the worlkds most adavaced environmental energy research and development.

actually i disagree with the selling of pollution points, i think they really do defeat the purpose of the whole system.

it turns a serious environmental effort into another economic/ capitalistic oriented bussiness oppertunity.

Doug

 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total value of final goods and services produced within a country's borders in a year.

Final goods of course being a car for example. Yes, consumption is part of the GDP formula. I.e. Ford Motor Company buys tires/engine parts from china/korea/taiwan..they get shipped to detroit and a car is made here. The CAR is part of GDP in the US. These are goods that get sold to people. A small microchip does the common person no good, a dell computer does. See the difference?

See above, i think you have the wrong idea for GDP. As GDP is the value of final goods being produced, i think it is an accurate assessment.

All systems of measuring are flawed. Per capita is the worst that i've seen though.

I never said we should expect to get 24% of the worlds goods/wealth.

Lets look at this realistically. The world's gdp is 40 trillion. There are 6.5ish billion people in the world. That comes out to be 6,150 dollars per capita.

the GDP per capita of new zealand is 21,000 dollars. The GDP per capita of America is 37,000 dollars. The GDP per capita of Nigeria is 900 dollars. You live in a privileged society just like i do. Why are you more deserving to keep your wealth? If we are going to reduce the standard of living for America, we need to do it to ALL of the west. We ALL live privileged lives.

All westerners are horrific consumers and waste resources like there is no tomorrow. Admittedly, Americans are the worst. That, however, does not get you and other westerners off the hook.

America has an 'unfair' share of the wealth in the world, but so does New Zealand.

I fully support coming up with alternatives to oil that will help the environment.

No one should pollute anything, but its a fact of life. We ALL need to cut back in anyway we can and developing alternative fuels is the best way to do it so this isnt even a discussion.

Who is trying to justify pollution?

I'm pushing for efficient/enviro friendly cars NOW, screw waiting for it.

In the meantime, when companies leave america in droves for india/china/other third world nations because they can no longer pollute in america, are you going to pay unemployment for the americans who have no healthcare or cant make their mortgage?

i hope it spreads. Considering germany's economy has been at a standstill the past few years, i'll withhold my optimism..

Atleast we agree on something. Thats a start

If we are going to clean up the world we need to make a serious effort to do that. That means no country can benefit from kyoto while others suffer. As you said above, if we are not able to pollute, it will force us to come up with alternative means for energy. THATS fair. Kyoto, which which will have third world countries polluting like mad(china will soon pass the US substantially i might add), does not fix the problem, it is merely a bandaid for a laceration. What we need is a tourniquet.

 

Kyoto is a stepping stone towards further tougher limits being placed upon people.

My country has already begun fullfilling its kyoto agreements to an extent, and is trying to transition the country into the kyoto protocol smoothly.

you talked about the US having 37,000 per capita, and NZ having 21,000 per capita. well i agree NZ is a priviledged country, and that we get more than our fair share of things. i also in my argument think we should be reducing our pollution too.

but you would need to reduce pollution about 500% more than we would in order to get the same per-capita pollution as we would. there is nothing that would be able to stop this fact.

unless of course per-capita really is flawed (i don't understand how its flawed, i'd like to hear why it is flawed) the per capita, GDP, and pollution levels, and countries wealth ALL need to be taken into account for a fair assesment.

and the funny thing is that the Kyoto-protocol took ALL these things into account. the ecnomic development of 3rd world countries was taken into account so that once a place like china became 1st world it would get all the restrictions that all other countrys have. and if the US ships jobs to china because of relaxed pollution issues, then it would drive china to first world status faster than it could by itself. and would then impose pollution restrictions.

it lets them get away with things that we have already gotten away with. (IMO that in some ways is a bit silly)

germanys economic standstill.... IMO an economic standstill is better than "growth"

if every country had an economic standstill then we would have a "stable" world. the requirement for a country to always be "producing more" "consuming more" and "growing economically" is a scary reality.

the emphasis we have on consumption being the marker of our civilisation is really scary IMO.

in the last ten thousand years our consumption of natural resources has grown exponentially compared to our population increase which has also grown exponentially. infact in the last 100 years since the industrial revolution nearly all our consumption has occured.

people lived prior to this, which means our life is not controlled by consumption, we litterally don't need most of what we have now days, (incluiding this computer in front of me LOL)

so germany having an economic standstill to me is not a concern i respect it. if they get into a recestion meaning that they are losing jobs and such then it becomes an issue.

problem with capitalism and globalisation. don't ask the kyoto protocol to undo what the US has pushed through with things such as free trade and other globalising forces.

sure. but i will pay my share of the environmental debt if you pay yours. i don't want to pay yours as well.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total value of "final goods and services" produced within a country's borders in a year.

services is a nice thing to ignore LOL.

yes we do need to.

alternative fuels only help us maintain our current level of consumption the scary fact is that its our consumption that needs to be reduced in order to maximise our useage of current fuel resources.

if we are always saying "we need new power stations the current supply doesn't full the demand" it really is trying to fix the sewrage problem by building a longer pipeline. or the rubish problem by building a bigger rubbish dump.

efficency of current systems is infact more effective than new systems, and the fact is our current lifestyle (yours and mine) cannot be sustained, even with alternate fuels)

hydrogen fuel cells for cars only act as energy storage, the power to create the hydrogen comes from power stations, if those power stations are run on gas, coal, nuclear, or other polluting sources then the hydrogen is effectivly no better than petrol.

things like biking to work, or walking/ catching buses and trains is making the current system more efficient and bypassing much of the energy use that we currently use. it would reduce the need for new power sources.

the US uses 192,000,000 gallons of petrol (gasoline) per day. 120 million people drive to work every day in the US, and of those 120 million, 108 million drive alone in a car.

if everyone took 2-3 people per car to work, (car pools, more efficient use of resources) then we could make the petrol last for at least 2 times longer, reduce the need for road maintanence, and new highways....

but the downside to this is car companys would lose customers, we would have all sorts of product loss..... meaning the economy would be hurt by protecting the environment.... but the costs would also be reduced, and people could live with less pay as they are spending less to live.


its all a HUGE HUGE problem. and the kyoto protocol was not set up to solve the countries internal economic, social, and infrustructural problems. it was set up by all countries to effect the worlds entire pollution output to save the globe as an entity.

my sister is the manager of an australian magazine and alternative technology company. they have a whole pile of resources available to asses your effciency of your house. and provide answers of how to reduce your personal energy consumption by around 70% without compromising your lifestyle in any way.

they have a simple computer based questionare that you fill in on the way around your house to calculate your current energy use, then you type in your energy bill costs, and it will tell you how many hundreds -> thousands of dollars you can save per year by things such as insulation, energy saving light bulbs..... minor changes.

but even with these measures, we will need to change our lifestyles to achieve the ultimate reduction in power and fuel consumption.

Alltaken