OT: US Pres election

[HoneyBadger]

I didn't think the war in Iraq was a blunder-a mess yes, but not a stupid mistake on the part of the Bush administration. War is never a mistake, when it comes to political favor. Even the Vietnam War didn't usher Nixon out of office.

And as far as Bush-bashing goes, the American people, as a whole, were *behind* Bush when 9/11 happened. The Iraq war sounded like a good idea then-we were going to get rid of Saddam, and the weapons of mass delusion, and then take out the terrorists, using Iraq as a staging ground.

My dad, for instance-an extremely bright and talented man, who's also quite reactionary and a lot more right-winged than I'm entirely comfortable with-loved and praised and defended Bush to me when he first entered office. For the several months in office, he was a "savior" and "the best man for the office", because he was going to whip the terrorists Texas-fashion (single-handed and bare-fisted, if need be), restore the country's pride in the whitehouse, and then lift our economy to unforseen new heights.

Now my dad hates him. Can't stand Bush. Misses Clinton-which at the time he couldn't stand.

Bush and his cabinet screwed the pooch. Plain and simple. If he and his followers had made better choices, people wouldn't *be* bashing him. It wasn't the war on terrorism that unmade Bush, it was Hurricane Katrina, and the gas prices, and the fact that even isolationist America doesn't like being spit on by other countries-and we really don't like it when the other countries have good reasons to spit on us.

Bush is a joke, because he's made of himself a laughing-stock. Not because he's Republican, or rich, or war-mongering, or any of those things. It's because he's a goofy bastard that can't do the job-and consistently rubs our faces in the fact that he can't do the job. The fact that Cheney managed to shoot his best friend in the face, while in office, didn't help things either.

Bashing Clinton because he had sex with an intern is lame, irrelevant, and sensationalist. Bashing Bush because his cronies let a bunch of Americans die unnecessarily, and made the world hate us, and are systematically destroying American businesses, the environment, and the Constitution, is just being sensible and patriotic.

I do know exactly what you mean, Ballbarian-I've lived under the same system you have, for over 30 years, and I'm open to your way of thinking. I don't like how irresponsible and irreverent-to-the-point-of-blasphemy-and-disgrace the media is, either, but there's a time and a place for questioning our leadership, as free citizens who are also responsible for the freedoms we have--and this is it.

And I'm hoping that the black thing will even itself out, actually--there are lots and lots of traditionally conservative states that also have large Black and Hispanic populations, and Utah's one of them. It might actually work in Obama's favor. I can see lots of people not wanting to vote for Obama, but I can't see that many people actually bothering to vote for Mccain.

[Agema]

I thought I'd also flag up two articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...in&oref=slogin

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/


Both examine similar statistical measures. It's fascinating to see that apparently, the Democrats have historically done a better job of running the economy. Not only that, but the Republicans have also massively benefitted the wealthier compared to the poorer.

[Agema]

Sorry for the double post but...

We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead (although things wouldn't have been much better under Saddam), thousands of servicemen from various countries are dead. It's incited terrorism against the West, and the country was heavily infested by Al-Qaida, which before it had no support there. It's still in near civil-war. And then there's the stuff like Abu Ghraib.

Iraq is not just a mess. It is a blunder. A vast, overwhelming blunder, which made the USA/UK look aggressive, hypocritical, and stupid. It has devastated our international respect and political power, and also shown the limitations of our military. The cost has been enormous as well.

Ballbarian stated "the constant undermining of the currently elected president (be he Democrat or Republican) pisses me off and tempts a retributive vote". Leaders are always undermined because that's just the way it is: they will have opponents and critics. But I'll tell you why this president is being particularly undermined. He has been awful, and his sub-30% approval ratings prove the point. Criticism is the stick that encourages good performance. If presidents (or anyone in any task) don't perform well, it's entirely right and proper people beat them with that stick.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Agema

Sorry for the double post but...

We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated.

I will probably offend others and make me look like a lunatic, but I knew even before the fighting began that Saddam was a scapegoat and there were other interests at work. Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue on television where he mistook Saddam for bin Laden was a farce, and I thought "nobody is going to fall for that, right? right?" but evidently that thought was wrong. As bad as the Iraq leadership was, and as much as Saddam has openly threatened Israel, the Iraq was a sovereign country, and I don't accept the self-righteous act of overriding an U.N. decision by the U.S. government just because it differed with their opinion and because they can. It was a war of aggression from the U.S. and seeing how easily they ignored any other aspects instead of listening to reason with that tunnel vision made me fear who else would be safe from an overzealous attitude like that.

When 9/11 happened it was already clear, at least to some, that there was going to be a war. It wasn't possible that that terroristic act would go without a reaction. The way things jumped and gone head over heels didn't portray the U.S. in a good light, though. Rather like the school bully, if I wanted to express it in the least negative way. Let's hope the future leadership learns from that.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Agema

We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead (although things wouldn't have been much better under Saddam), thousands of servicemen from various countries are dead. It's incited terrorism against the West, and the country was heavily infested by Al-Qaida, which before it had no support there. It's still in near civil-war. And then there's the stuff like Abu Ghraib.

I think that you are stepping into a land mine here.
I do agree with you (even more so since I feel there is never a good reason for one country to invade another country and taking out their leader even if it all had been true).

But you need to look closely at the arguments that have been given. When someone says it was not a mistake and then points at the polls, he is trying to say that it was apparently not a political error for that politician to do it. At the same calling it a blunder means he is agreeing that the reasons given for the action turned out to be false.

As much as it irritates me, I would have to agree with those. We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.

Gandalf Parker
--
Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.

[Skirmisher]

[quote=Gandalf Parker;641562]

Originally Posted by Agema

We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.

Very good point here. Richard M Nixon was impeached for far less. George W Bush may be the worst US president ever.
He took a robust ecomony left by Bill Clinton and utterly ruined it. Now he's trying to ruin it more by passing that 700 billion dollar bail out. Why should ordinary people have to foot the bill for stupid decisions made by financial firms?
I'm glad they didn't pass it.

[Azselendor]

This bailout is not some gesture to save the economy. It's a ploy to rule from the grave. By spending $700b out of the treasury, Bush will cripple any plans the next president or two plans to do. Doesn't matter if McCain or Obama wins as both would be limited to only what exists in the current budget.


Why is this a bad idea: David Corn summarizes the left's case against the bailout in this article. His main points are:

• The taxpayers will not only bail out U.S. companies, but also foreign ones
• Million-dollar-a-month CEO salaries will continue
• The five-member oversight board will include three Bush appointees
• Few home owners will be saved from foreclosure
• There are no guarantees that the treasury will get warrants commensurate with its investment
• There is no regulatory reform in the bill

[capnq]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Even the Vietnam War didn't usher Nixon out of office.

But it did force Johnson not to run for re-election.