Printable View
On the BBC news this morning, they were saying that most Americans were pleased with the way president Bush is running the country so far.
What's that all about then?
I get the impression from posts i've read in this forum that he is very unpopular but judging from the news report, it seems that the wider public approve of him.
What does an American president have to do to become unpopular these days?
ban guns. They'd impeach for sure.
All I have to say is.........don't believe everything you read! :rolleyes:
What do you mean, in this forum or generally? :)
and also when they say 'most americans' they actaully mean, most americans who voted for Bush, and most americans who said that Bush was a good president. They should have said, "All americans who voted for Bush and all americans that said they liked the Bush Administration are pleased with the way Bush is running the country.
Both!! I hear the same thing on the news about Bush but the people I talk to day to day are not happy at all with what's going on.....I tend to think the media tries to dictate how you should think but not all of us are buying it!!!!!!!
I looked at the BBC web site (all phrased in wonderful diplomatic BBCish) and I think "pleased" is a bit of an overstatement ;)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
On the BBC news this morning, they were saying that most Americans were pleased with the way president Bush is running the country so far.
Another Vietnam?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
What does an American president have to do to become unpopular these days?
OUCH!
But Katie - about half your voters (minus those who could only manage a dimpled chad :rolleyes: ) voted for him so it can't be just the media -Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Both!! I hear the same thing on the news about Bush but the people I talk to day to day are not happy at all with what's going on.....I tend to think the media tries to dictate how you should think but not all of us are buying it!!!!!!!
- and he seems to have done exactly what he promised so they still must be pleased
Bush did not win the popular vote...he won the vote on electoral votes...he does not have the mandate of the majority.
Katie,
Please explain what the difference is between the 'popular' vote and the 'electoral' vote.
It's not clear to me what you mean...:confused:
The United States is a Republic....which means that we elect the people who speak for us.
Each state has a certain amount of electoral votes. This is determined by the population. This is to avoid the people in the most populous states votes outweighing the people in the less populated votes. The members of the electoral college cast votes for who the people of the state want.
The winner of the election is determined by who got the majority of electoral votes not the count of each persons vote.
The state of Florida had 25 electoral votes....Bush "won" the vote in of the people in Florida so he got the electoral votes.
Katie,
Thanks for the explanation but it's still unclear (for me anyway).
How do the electoral colleges decide who the people of the state want?Quote:
The members of the electoral college cast votes for who the people of the state want.
Is an 'electoral college' the equivilant of a 'consituancy' in this country?
By the way,
As I understand it, a republic is nation that determines it's head of state by any means other than hereditary right. Therefore a republic is not necessarilly democratic! :pQuote:
The United States is a Republic....which means that we elect the people who speak for us.
My point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Katie,
Thanks for the explanation but it's still unclear (for me anyway).
How do the electoral colleges decide who the people of the state want?
By the popular vote.
Is an 'electoral college' the equivilant of a 'consituancy' in this country?
I'm unfamiliar with a consituancy...sorry.
By the way,
As I understand it, a republic is nation that determines it's head of state by any means other than hereditary right. Therefore a republic is not necessarilly democratic! :p
I guess I could look it up :cool: (i couldn't find a 'lazy' smile) but what proportion of the popular vote did each candidate get ?Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Bush did not win the popular vote...he won the vote on electoral votes...he does not have the mandate of the majority.
I'd have to look up the specific numbers(yep..I'm lazy too) but I do know that Gore got 51% of the popular vote so that only leaves 49% for the indies and Bush.
- it is a familiar story as essentially our parliamentry process is similar to your electoral college system in that way so almost all British governments are minority ones (with the exceptions of Thatcher and Blair).Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
I'd have to look up the specific numbers(yep..I'm lazy too) but I do know that Gore got 51% of the popular vote so that only leaves 49% for the indies and Bush.
- still it makes about half your voters - a significant mandate and not just a couple or rednecks holed up the the woods somewhere :)
Truly frightening isn't it? :(Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
- still it makes about half your voters - a significant mandate and not just a couple or rednecks holed up the the woods somewhere :)
Indie bands? What are they doing in a presidential election???Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
indies
:D
Truly!!Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Truly frightening isn't it? :(
Providing a more credible opposition??Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Indie bands? What are they doing in a presidential election???
:D
:rolleyes:
:DQuote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Indie bands? What are they doing in a presidential election???
:D
On the news this morning, it is reported that Bush would like to solve the energy crisis in America by building new nuclear power stations and drilling for natural gas on one of America's finest national parks in Alaska.
One great idea after another! President Bush knows how to keep us all entertained doesn't he? :rolleyes:
Interesting. I never understood the American voting system before, thanks Katie.
Strangely some people in Western Canada want a similar system implemented up here, as the population of Western Canada is a fraction of the East, so effectively the east votes in the government, yet a huge amount of Canada's money comes from the West (Oil & Gas).
I guess no political system has been invented that keeps all of the people happy, or can be considered "fair" to everyone.
SD
Surely the best voting system is where the majority vote wins. That way, you get to please the most people.
Maybe the east is more heavily populated than the west SD, but why should the people in the east all vote for one person, yet the west vote for another?
Because birds of a feather flock together! Like-minded people live near each other. It really is that simple.
so a large mass of people have no mind of their own? Hmmm. madness.
Madness.....yes. but also truth. That's one reason I live in never-never land...so I can think for myself!
good plan tinkerbell.;)
Well, The west of Canada has a very low population. The province I'm in is something like 3 times the size of Britain and only has a population of something like 3-4 million people. Yet they have all the oil. So the Eastern government taxes the oil heavily and uses these taxes to support the economy. When they spend all the money, it's given to the Eastern provinces as subsidies to keep the population happy.Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Surely the best voting system is where the majority vote wins. That way, you get to please the most people.
Maybe the east is more heavily populated than the west SD, but why should the people in the east all vote for one person, yet the west vote for another?
From the politicians point of view there is no point in keeping the Western population happy as they only account for a fraction of the vote. As an example, the Prime Minister on his last election campaign didn't even come within 500km of our city despite the fact that it's one of the richest cities in Canada. Quite simply it doesn't have enough of a population to make a difference and everyone resents him tax our industry to support the east.
Right or Wrong, thats the view from the West. I am sure somebody from Eastern Canada would see it differently, but thats what I mean by their never being a fair political system. I might disagree with it, but I would probably do the same if I was a politician trying to stay in power!
SD
All democratic systems are flawed. What ever system you have there are draw backs.
I think we should listen to Plato who said that societies should be autocratic and led by the 'perfect' philosapher. :)
Well we don't have that in Britain primarily because there is very seldom an outright majority.Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Surely the best voting system is where the majority vote wins. That way, you get to please the most people.
Do you mean Chit-Chat by some chance?;)Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
.....I live in never-never land...so I can think for myself!
Nope....Never-neverland...to fet there....just take the third star to the left and straight on 'til morning!:p
well he would say that being a philosopher . . :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
. . . Plato . . who said that societies should be autocratic and led by the 'perfect' philosapher. :)
- - I propose government by VB programmers ;)
contributions of code to run the world welcomed
Yes we do. First past the post is the most-used system. Only recently in european elections have we used proportional represenation.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Well we don't have that in Britain primarily because there is very seldom an outright majority.
Chris - you vote for the MP in your constituency - not your party in the election - and the government is drawn from the party with or group with the majority of MPs - not the same where the majority vote wins at allQuote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Yes we do. First past the post is the most-used system. Only recently in european elections have we used proportional represenation.
- as you know we almost always have governments who have received less than 50% of the votes.
. . . and of course some political parties can consistantly get a significant minority vote with disproportionately low representation because of this system
yes, but 1st past post is how an MP is elected.
Yup - agreed !:)Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
yes, but 1st past post is how an MP is elected.
;)
And there are lot of people like you there:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Nope....Never-neverland...to fet there....just take the third star to the left and straight on 'til morning!:p
No.....I've been told I'm quite unique!;)Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
And there are lot of people like you there:confused:
Wrong question ;) are there any other people there?Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
No.....I've been told I'm quite unique!;)
The perfect philosopher is supposed to be the only person capable of making the best descisions in everybody's interest. Probably no such person exists (or ever has) but if there were such a person, it would probably be a much better system that a democratic government.
Would the 'perfect' programmer really make a good president? What makes a perfect programmer?
Only my invisible playmates and the voices in my head!Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Wrong question ;) are there any other people there?
On a similar vein, I remember reading a theory that the perfect government is a benign dictatorship. i.e. Someone with absolute power who makes decisions for the best interests of the country.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The perfect philosopher is supposed to be the only person capable of making the best descisions in everybody's interest. Probably no such person exists (or ever has) but if there were such a person, it would probably be a much better system that a democratic government.
Would the 'perfect' programmer really make a good president? What makes a perfect programmer?
This happens in war time when re-election is not an issue. For example: Churchill knew in advance that the Germans planned to launch a naval bombardment of the city of Coventry because they had cracked the Enigma code. He had two choices - order the evacuation of the city and save thousands of lives (but also give the game away that they were intercepting the German orders) or Sacrifice the city. He sacrificed the city, a decision he has later stated as being the hardest of the war. Ultimately it was the right choice, reading the Enigma code was regarded as one of the turning points of the war. However an elected politician, concerned for their re-election would have saved the city and possibly lost the war.
Of course the problem then arises: who do you give this absolute power to and how do you make sure they do not abuse it?
Looking at British, American, Irish and Canadian politicians, they're about the most corrupt people in the world..... I wouldn't trust any of them with my kids pocket money.
SD
As I said before, Plato asserted that only the "perfect philosopher" would be suitable for such a role.Quote:
Of course the problem then arises: who do you give this absolute power to and how do you make sure they do not abuse it?
But the perfect philosopher could easily come up with the premise.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
As I said before, Plato asserted that only the "perfect philosopher" would be suitable for such a role.
I have absolute power, therefore no-one can take it away from me, therefore I can do what I want, and oh my god look at the size of breasts on her!!!
:D
SD
I voted for Al Gore, but in Bush's defense, I think it is always easier to mock someone then to appraise someone.
Being in a high political power position or famous role is like a sitting duck. No one can ever satisfied everyone.
You said Bush is unpopular in this forum, well, not everyone in here is from United State. It is like the American citizens judging the President of Japan.
True, it might be easy to poke fun at people in the limelight, but he is one prize plonker.Quote:
Originally posted by Tyler from Alaska
You said Bush is unpopular in this forum, well, not everyone in here is from United State. It is like the American citizens judging the President of Japan.
As for judging him from abroad, I think we have a right. There is a quote in this mornings paper about the defence shield and one of Canada's major objections to it (apart from re-igniting an arms race). When it was mentioned that to intercept Russian missiles, most of the interceptions would have to happen over Western Canada in Canadian airspace, the response was "Well in war all the rules go out of the window." So, thats meant to make invading your friendly neighbours airspace and dropping nuclear waste on their cities okay?
He is the laughing stock of the international comunity (even more so than Creten and Teddy-Blair :)
SD
Quote:
Originally posted by SurfDemon
True, it might be easy to poke fun at people in the limelight, but he is one prize plonker.
As for judging him from abroad, I think we have a right.
Everyone has rights and opinions!
I understand your point, but in general, people finds it easier to mock than to appraise.
Maybe some people, but I find there are a lot of people who I admire, and I think alot of people praise where it is deserved. From my perspective (and this seems to be shared by the world), Bush is a terrible President for America, but at least he'll give us a good laugh as we go along.Quote:
Originally posted by Tyler from Alaska
I understand your point, but in general, people finds it easier to mock than to appraise.
Lets see know, he's been in power for what, a few months now?
He's backed out of two global agreements (Kyoto & Star), pissed off all of his allies, screwed the American voters (though you could argue that this doesn't count as he did it before he was President), decided to pump billions of your dollars into a shield which is obsolete before it even starts and seems to be on course to re-ignite the arms race.
I don't know how old you are Tyler, but I grew up during the last arms race, and it wasn't a bundle of laughs. I don't want my kids growing up with that.
This is not mocking him because he is in power, this is mocking him because he's a wally:)
Maybe you can enlighten me to his good points (such as his human-rights record etc.):D
SD
Here's a list of Bush's good points.........
.
well americans you will be pleased to know you are not alone in this missile defense thingy. An aide to Tony Blair has said we more or less support the idea, but a few more details will need to be known and some stuff going over. Apparently the project's success depends on whether we let you use our early-warning radar installations. Interesting.
SurfDemon,
I am not a big fan of Bush. I always have been for Clinton. But you see Clinton's era, the American people nag on his scandal. I personally think that his private life has nothing to do with how he runs the world. I am a big fan of Clinton not Bush. I am just raising the point to Simon that people in general like to point fingers than to appreciate (nothing against your point :))
I think Clinton did a great job with Economic Prosperity regardless whatever he did in his personal life. As I said, I voted for Al Gore, not for Bush.
I agree with you, Tyler.........100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I don't think you meant to say that. Did Clinton run the world? No. He ran 4% of it.Quote:
Originally posted by Tyler from Alaska
how he runs the world
Relax, Chris....America is our "world" figuratively....and that's what it is just a figure of speech. Don't get your panties in a bunch!:pQuote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Now I don't think you meant to say that. Did Clinton run the world? No. He ran 4% of it.
hey, i'm just bein' pedantic.;) I was sorry to see the old bugger go. He and TB got on famously.
BTW, you forgot one of bush's good points on that there mile-long list of yours...he is an easy target for witty comments. e.g.
- Bush Administration
- Too much bush on TV etc etc
Odd you should say that....my husband truly dislikes our President but he's always said he could never have too much Bush.....I can't understand him sometimes:rolleyes: