everyone is always not gonna be happy about bush or obama , at least bush was protecting our country on that horrible 9/11 day, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
Obama's losing the adults, so now he's trying to indoctrinate the children. The cult of Obama. It's a repeat of his election tactics. All children, praise Dear Leader.
wildkitty: everyone is always not gonna be happy about bush or obama , at least bush was protecting our country on that horrible 9/11 day, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
What a joke that was....his claim to fame .......
All he did was being there at the time......and reacting to it..... Can't say he had anything to do with protecting the country, his administration had plenty of advance warnings and did nothing to prevent it.
wildkitty: everyone is always not gonna be happy about bush or obama , at least bush was protecting our country on that horrible 9/11 day, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
And this 'eye for an eye" mentality is alot of the reason we have such terrible foreign relationships - after Bush used that moral as basis for his leadership. We need foreign countries for our economy to recover .....
Sorry........ you live in a democracy and you guys voted him back in in enough numbers that he won even if some voting results were a bit 'iffy'!
You are a very large country - strange that each state has its own voting laws just to complicate matters. I'd have thought a federal voting system where the same voting laws and methodology was universal throughout the USA would make more sense!
ivanski: What a joke that was....his claim to fame .......
All he did was being there at the time......and reacting to it..... Can't say he had anything to do with protecting the country, his administration had plenty of advance warnings and did nothing to prevent it.
Clinton had the warning, 2 other attacks and the means to stop the upcoming attack and did nothing to prevent the third, 9/11.
He also neglected to remove Saddam Hussein from power during Desert Fox. He could have stopped Bush's invasion.
jvaski: And this 'eye for an eye" mentality is alot of the reason we have such terrible foreign relationships - after Bush used that moral as basis for his leadership. We need foreign countries for our economy to recover .....
It seems we are crawling very slowly towards the realisation that we live on one planet and that we somebody does in one part of the planet indirectly or directly affects other parts of the planet.
I know of some Americans who even realise that more time zones exist than just the ones in the USA - truly amazing how some simple folk are beginning to grasp that a large part of the world exists outside of the USA!
We all need each other - unless we wish to vastly reduce our standard of living and only eat seasonal fruit and vegetables and only kill the odd local bovine when its big enough to kill.
Maybe not a bad idea.
Kill all methods of transport to other lands. Kill all trade. Kill all mass communication and let's all go back to living in caves - suits the mentality of quite a few people who live blinkered lives!
RobertC2: It seems we are crawling very slowly towards the realisation that we live on one planet and that we WHAT somebody does in one part of the planet indirectly or directly affects other parts of the planet.
RobertC2: Sorry........ you live in a democracy and you guys voted him back in in enough numbers that he won even if some voting results were a bit 'iffy'!
You are a very large country - strange that each state has its own voting laws just to complicate matters. I'd have thought a federal voting system where the same voting laws and methodology was universal throughout the USA would make more sense!
It is our US Constitution, Robert. Specifies that the state run the elections. When they wrote the Constitution, they feared a strong centralized gov't...one that could steal an election or make a man a king. So as a check and balance, they gave the states the role of running the elections.
wildkitty: everyone is always not gonna be happy about bush or obama , at least bush was protecting our country on that horrible 9/11 day, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
In a Democratic election you get what you deserve.......... that's why I do not sympathise either with the USA for voting in Bush for a second term, or the Palestinians for voting in HAMAS.
jvaski: And this 'eye for an eye" mentality is alot of the reason we have such terrible foreign relationships - after Bush used that moral as basis for his leadership. We need foreign countries for our economy to recover .....
That 'eye for an eye' mentality put countries like NKorea and Libya in their place. It lets the world know we will respond if provoked.
Obama's Apology Tour blew that. They know he's the president of appeasement. NKorea is back to developing their nuclear and missile programs and shipping arms to Iran and other terrorist nations, kidnapping our citizens and using them as negotiating tools and Dear Leader fell for it hook, line and sinker. He's also done nothing to end Iran's nuclear program, just accelerated it. Libya will be next on the list to thumb their nose at us again.
Add diplomatic relations and the nations security to his long list of failures.
ttom500: It is our US Constitution, Robert. Specifies that the state run the elections. When they wrote the Constitution, they feared a strong centralized gov't...one that could steal an election or make a man a king. So as a check and balance, they gave the states the role of running the elections.
I just think it would be less complicated if the voting system was the same in one country........... I guess in the UK we have one national election system and one for local givernment - nobody fears the methodology of the national election system even though it's based on the highest vote getting in (i.e. a member of parliament can get in on far less than 50% of the votes cast in that area as long as he/she got the most votes).
Governments CAN influence the vote as they also do in the USA by 'gerrymandering' voting areas so that an area is squeezed into a majority of inhabitants who are known to vote one particular way.
RobertC2: I just think it would be less complicated if the voting system was the same in one country........... I guess in the UK we have one national election system and one for local givernment - nobody fears the methodology of the national election system even though it's based on the highest vote getting in (i.e. a member of parliament can get in on far less than 50% of the votes cast in that area as long as he/she got the most votes).
Governments CAN influence the vote as they also do in the USA by 'gerrymandering' voting areas so that an area is squeezed into a majority of inhabitants who are known to vote one particular way.
The Republicans have been calling for election reform here for years. The Democrats keep blocking it. The won't approve even the most basic reform, presenting a valid photo ID when voting. Add to that paying an organization like ACORN, for which Obama once did legal work to register voters and who are now under indictment in at least 15 state for their illegal registration activities, reform is the last thing they want. The mess the system is in now wins them elections.
I think the USA political and election system is way too complicated for an uneducated foreighner like me to figure out.
A modern democratic country with such a complex system seems to be unsatisfactory.
If a system is clearly fair and transparent and as uncomplicated as possible but with sensible built-in safeguards then people are less likely to gripe if their particular party loses; seems you guys have a lot to gripe about!
Whether you like it or not.. Bush's foreign policies dealing with hostile nations were working. Whether you like it or not.. after Obama was elected and after he talked with Bush, you'll notice a change in his attitude towards foreign policies. But he still has to grow a pair to deal with foreign nations.
RobertC2: I just think it would be less complicated if the voting system was the same in one country........... I guess in the UK we have one national election system and one for local givernment - nobody fears the methodology of the national election system even though it's based on the highest vote getting in (i.e. a member of parliament can get in on far less than 50% of the votes cast in that area as long as he/she got the most votes).
Governments CAN influence the vote as they also do in the USA by 'gerrymandering' voting areas so that an area is squeezed into a majority of inhabitants who are known to vote one particular way.
Not with the well defined state borders and a electrol college, Robert. Each state is given a set number of electrol votes. The state vote is massed together....no way that gerry mandering can play role in a Presidential election, that I see.
Gerrymanding can come into play with Congressional districts and States districts. But you can have that in the UK as well, a new district can be defined for say a party Canidate for either your parties.
The 25 years I did elections here in Florida. I would see new districts (for House and State districts) re drawn every several years. But for Senate and Presidential election....no
Dan4825: Whether you like it or not.. Bush's foreign policies dealing with hostile nations were working. Whether you like it or not.. after Obama was elected and after he talked with Bush, you'll notice a change in his attitude towards foreign policies. But he still has to grow a pair to deal with foreign nations.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).