What do you think of our current President?

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by renrich

It is true that anyone can have opinions and express them. It is just surprising to me that so many from other countries have such strong opinions that mostly seem to reflect the point of view that want the US to be more like countries in Europe. Our history, our demographics, our society and our politics are nothing like Europe's. The characteristics that have made this country great are, I believe, foreign to Europeans.

I think that a lot of these opinions are created by the European concerns about war. Europe has suffered tremendously under wars. Besides Serbia Europe has been a war free zone now since almost 65 years, this has never happened before. The leftist and liberal parties are towards a majority, in many countries they already have it and off course influence even manipulate the European mind by forwarding this peace progress as an result of their politics and actions.

If you ask them who maintained peace against Russia, they will not say due to the backing of the US and NATO, but because of their policy towards reduction of American influence and politics.

So it is easy to point at the US who was “involved” in about 10 wars plus side player in another dozen conflicts. Let us not discuss about wrong or right – fact is that Europe is peaceful and the US is not and this is propagated throughout minds now for almost 3 generations.

Furthermore there is a large amount of jealousy involved towards the US, and jealous people tend to look more into details in order to bring up issues so as to hide their own inefficiency towards others.

And as freebird has forwarded very well: Who cares about an Austrian or Norwegian political decision, it has no impact on Europe or the world, in contra to a US President who just needs to cough two times in a row in order for the international stock market to loose 3%.

Regards
Kruska

[trackend]

I have to agree with Freebird,Kruska etc interest in the states political scene by non US citizens is all about self interest. As the most powerful economy on the planet political decisions carried out in the states cascade down to effect all the other nations. Why is everyone so interested in the middle east the bottom line is oil. The interest in the USA political scene is mostly for economic selfishness.

[Njaco]

Good post Kruska.

Is it me or do most of the major powers throughout history have the same effect and result? From Roman times to now.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Good post Kruska.

Is it me or do most of the major powers throughout history have the same effect and result? From Roman times to now.

Yes, but I think perhaps the British Empire in the 1700's & 1800's would have been the first time that people could llok at an upcoming election and ponder the changes that it would bring. For Imperial France, The Spanish, Russian, Empires etc. the changes were sudden and unexpected, as they occured on the death of the King or after a revolution.

So the difference is that now we can look forward to a date-certain change

[renrich]

FB,There you go again with the Bush bias. It may be true that the dems took over congress two years ago because of the voters dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. It is a fact that we have had no more terrorist attacks in the US and there has been great progress in Iraq and most informed people would agree that a US force based in a stable and friendly to the US Iraq would be a good thing. However, the polls, if you trust them, indicate that the economy and gasoline prices are the major "fly in the buttermilk" to the American voter. If the Repubs lose the presidential election, it will be because of economic issues, not because of perceived missteps by the Bush administration in Iraq. Now, if you want to blame Bush for high oil prices or the "recession" which isn't yet, please give me some "Back up"

[freebird]

[/quote]

Originally Posted by renrich

FB,There you go again with the Bush bias. It may be true that the dems took over congress two years ago because of the voters dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. It is a fact that we have had no more terrorist attacks in the US and there has been great progress in Iraq and most informed people would agree that a US force based in a stable and friendly to the US Iraq would be a good thing.

Ren the problem is that the Bush administration has been trying to "nurse" along democracy in Iraq for 4+ years, instead of accepting a lesser, but solid outcome. Now in November it will still be a sore issue, if Obama gets in he will toss out the whole experiment and then blame the huge cost on Bush.

They should have understood that dragging this along for 4 years would have political consequences.

Originally Posted by renrich

However, the polls, if you trust them, indicate that the economy and gasoline prices are the major "fly in the buttermilk" to the American voter. If the Repubs lose the presidential election, it will be because of economic issues, not because of perceived missteps by the Bush administration in Iraq. Now, if you want to blame Bush for high oil prices or the "recession" which isn't yet, please give me some "Back up"

No I most certainly do not blame Bush for oil prices. Unfortunately the poor political situation has meant that the Repubs have to take a maverick McCain this year, which also means it will be difficult to only blame the Dems for not drilling.

That should be an issue that they should hit out of the park.
"We have lots of oil but the Dems won't let us drill"


Ren, maybe you have the patience to wait for 4 or 10 or 20 years for the Iraq "democracy experiment" to work out, but the Bush admin. should have understood that the general public in the US do not, and by "staying the course" it has dragged down the conservative movement

[starling]

just because clinton gave someone,lets say a facial.he did leave office with i believe the opposit of defecit,which premier bush then gave to the upper class,as it were,when he entered office.he also gave a good speech in the annual labour party conference,a number of years ago.yours,starling. .

[freebird]

Originally Posted by starling

just because clinton gave someone,lets say a facial.he did leave office with i believe the opposit of defecit,which premier bush then gave to the upper class,as it were,when he entered office.he also gave a good speech in the annual labour party conference,a number of years ago.yours,starling. .

Starling in the US the President does not have as much control on economic issues, because all bills must be done by Congress.

I guess the knock on Clinton was that he allowed the terrorists to organize unmolested while Slick Willy was busy "moistening his cigar"

[starling]

i sit corrected,but premier bushes g.o.p.had control of both chambers,i think.please correct me if i am wrong.starling.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by starling

i sit corrected,but premier bushes g.o.p.had control of both chambers,i think.please correct me if i am wrong.starling.

They sure did, and their poor performance helped put them into the minority in the last mid-term. They were just about as bad in overspending as the Democrats, a big no-no for conservatives.


But you are correct in this, even though the President has little control on the economy, he can still get blamed for it's poor performance

[renrich]

If one looks at the presidential campaigns one sees that all the focus is on the "economy" and on taxes. Taxes and Hussein's plans for raising taxes is a winner for McCain. The Iraq war is no better than a tertiary concern today of the campaign. It is too bad that McCain is on the wrong side of the global warming debate and drilling in ANWAR. That could be a good issue for him also. For the reason that Joe Lieberman is also all fouled up on global climate change, he would be a disaster as a VP nominee. Unfortunately no candidate can talk about drilling off shore as Florida is in play for both parties.

[Njaco]

which premier bush then gave to the upper class

Will people PLEASE stop with this "Republicans are only for wealthy" people rant!!! The democrats represent the richest voting areas in the US! And I don't see Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd or Jon Corzine picking food out of trash bins. Or Republicans stuffing cash into freezers. It is a myth perpetrated by the liberals to keep their own money.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

If one looks at the presidential campaigns one sees that all the focus is on the "economy" and on taxes. Taxes and Hussein's plans for raising taxes is a winner for McCain. The Iraq war is no better than a tertiary concern today of the campaign. It is too bad that McCain is on the wrong side of the global warming debate and drilling in ANWAR. That could be a good issue for him also. For the reason that Joe Lieberman is also all fouled up on global climate change, he would be a disaster as a VP nominee. Unfortunately no candidate can talk about drilling off shore as Florida is in play for both parties.

the issue is reducing the dependency on oil not finding new stuff you should try and leave a bit for the future

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

the issue is reducing the dependency on oil not finding new stuff you should try and leave a bit for the future

Tell that to the poor family struggling to put gas in their car - I'm sure you folks (on the other side of the falls ) are struggling as well but a change in oil consumption is not going to happen overnight.

Drill, but then at the same time start developing new energy technology.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Tell that to the poor family struggling to put gas in their car - I'm sure you folks (on the other side of the falls ) are struggling as well but a change in oil consumption is not going to happen overnight.

Drill, but then at the same time start developing new energy technology.

I think it's time we live within our means and a program to develop new sources of energy would be the equivilant of the Apollo project the spin offs in technology would be massive and also revitalize both your economy and industrial base . These industries wouldn't be as labour intensive as the auto sector but would supply good paying jobs as well as letting the US do what it does best taking the ball technology wise and running for the endzone .