Yes, Con I think that sums it up. The dilemma is whether to root for a Republican win and give Billary another chance, or "in a sea of arrows" put her/him out of their misery. See Brick's analysis a few posts back.
Location: FR | IC luftballons | Page 20 - photo thread: there be PPRuNe's most beautiful woman...
Posts: 297
It'll be a democrat residing in the White House next year.
Oh puhleeeeeeze (the usual contributors), gimme me a break. And give the rest of your fellow citizens (and the rest of the world) one as well.
And why it definitely won't be a Clinton:
There never were before, and probably never will be again, the combination of leaders and circumstances more favourable in leading to a solution of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict as displayed in the photo above.
Well, it didn't happen. 'Nuff said.
Obama should win (unless assasinated beforehand). He should appoint McCain as VP. On the premise that since it was a republican that got us into Iraq, it'll also be a republican's responsibility to extricate us from that quagmire...
Appoint McCain V-P? Where in Article II of the US Constitution is that?? Yes, the 26th Amendment might apply, IF the elected V-P resigned or died. BTW, presidential resignation is not in Article II about resignation and it might be unconstitutional, if Nixon hadn't been the one to try it first.
My opinion is like Kissinger's about the Iran/Iraq war, "shame both sides can't lose".
Don't you guys get it. A VP does not get appointed. He has to be elected.
Well not really elected, as in the Vice President does not not get elected on their own ticket; national level that is. Oklahoma is one of the few states that the Lt. Governor of the state can be from a different party. However, the Vice President is chosen/appointed by the party and runs as Vice President in the general election.
sometimes it might be so that the VP is a factor in the election of both candidates.
Dan Quayle was supposedly chosen for his blonde, air-head looks to appeal to women voters, when he was actually anathema to your average non-lobotomised female, plus he has a rather rabid wife who belongs to some far-out religious sect. So some of us think one reason George H.W. Bush was a one-term President was his choosing a moron (an even bigger one than George W. Bush) for a running mate.
Dan became instantly famous when he got a schoolchild to spell potato "potatoe," confirming most people's opinion that he really was tragically stupid, even by the degraded standards of today's American politics. He did serve his country during the Viet Nam war, though, in the National Guard, keeping our golf courses safe from Viet Cong infiltrators. That was not enough to sway the fickle American voters.
None of the following is meant to create offence, simply a view from outside.
Now - hands up those Americans who believed you would go into Iraq and the forces would stay there forever??
No hands?? OK - we've just established you do, indeed, have always had a timetable for pullout; just ain't defined it!
Maybe at some stage you have to "assist" the locals as best you can by making it their responsibility by giving them a timeline to get their sh*t together, give them all the help you can, then progressively reduce the troops.
I would suggest one year pullout 40%, 6 months later 30%, the remainder 6 months later - but just figures to demonstrate an intent.
Should religious tribalisim get the upper hand then that's unfortunate - you've tried, you/they've failed, that's life.
Tribalism is rife throughout the world, don't see huge US forces piling into the inherent tribalism of Africa and try to control the ongoing disturbance (at best), genocide (at worst) that's occurring.
The US has had decades to sort out the border issues, simple really - set up towers with machine guns, confirm in all languages possible that you have soverign territory and after sufficient notice start shooting those who choose to ignore.
Sadly over the decades POTAM's of both walks have talked the talk but...?
The reason for the post:
as an outsider I can only be impressed with the personal traits of the now republican frontrunner JMcC BUT -
-along with the other R candidates he plans to continue a war which has no semblance of a defined ending, at a cost of xxxx to the economy over xxxx of undefined years, not to mention the grief to families who lose their family for these "undefined" reasons;
- JmcC does not want to accept "responsibility" for the failure of the elected representatives over the decades to do something about the border situation, now much easier to talk about expelling people rather than questioning why the elected representatives over that time have taken no definitive action.
Regardless of how you spin it to make people "pay" for the inaction of elected representatives over decades by kicking them out of the country now (on any sort of a graduated timetable) is just plain unfair.
Having thought very highly prior to the R debates of McC the above were a dissapointment.
Not that the D's have me enraptured either!
On a separate note. and very quietly; I do believe the last 7 years under Bush have not left the US either financially, or in perception, a better country - but maybe that's just me.
Interesting discussion
Cheers
galdian
Last edited by galdian : 5th February 2008 at 05:05.
Reason: content
I've heard the old chestnut about Clinton's disgrace having nothing to do with sex, rather with lying, about a thousand times from the usual suspects. We can all believe what makes us feel better I suppose, and if that's what floats your boat, far be it from me to argue. No other politician has ever lied in office, so I accept the Scouts Honour pledge.
Binoculars: you are completely missing the boat. Yes, many politicians have lied and will again in the future. However, when someone is under oath, as Clinton was when he was deposed, lying is criminal offense -- perjury to be specific. A politician can (and will) lie all he or she wants during a press conference. But once a politician is under oath, if they lie then they should be prosecuted for perjury, just as us lowly surfs would be as well.
Clinton lied under oath and was impeached for perjury. He was not impeached because he did (or did not) have sex with that woman.
Nevertheless my opinion is unchanged. In my years of watching American politics, and it goes back ten years further than Brick's, I had never seen such an open season on a President as I saw after Clinton was elected.
Then you weren't paying attention. Just google Iran Contra.
I was reading an article in the papers today about the US elections and one thing that was said is that the TV writers strike is possibly affecting the results. The theory was that people who would normally sit at home drooling over the latest episode of the various soaps are so fed up with what is currently on offer that they are actually making the effort to go and vote instead.
If true I wonder which party/candidate this would benefit.
In the early 60's JFK said that America would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
Clear aim and intent, stated timespan - and indeed America did!
I suppose that's what they call "the good ol' days."
Linear Mode
