Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections(416 Posts)
What are the main differences between Obama and romney?
Is Obama like labour and Romney like very right conservative?
Why does Romney say he will get rid of the healthcare bill that Obama brought in.
Did it not work?
why wouldn't you want people without insurance to access healthcare ?
When he thought that a joint was a cigar at college and did not inhale
And he may yet do if Hillary runs in 2016 .....
It came up when Hillary was running. Bill Clinton would have been called the First Gentleman.
YEah, who ever the first fella ends up being (and there will be one) is going t have a rough time of it. And the first female POTUS will have to fight off allegations of him running things behind the scene.
Exactly nooka. I've always thought this, and because of it I've never forgiven Jackie O.
What happens when America finally has a female POTUS? I doubt there will be a 'First Man/Husband.'
Personally although Michelle Obama seems like a fine woman I find the whole 'First Lady' thing really really uncomfortable. I don't think that the wives (or occasional husbands) children, parents or other relatives of politicians should play a public role unless they are politicians/elected representatives in their own right. I think there is an underlying sexist note to it (wife on arm), and it also must make it much harder for unmarried/partnered people.
Ain't she just great!
Such an asset - and I do not get the feeling that she wants to run for office herself like Hilary always did
Just watching Mrs. Obama's speech again as well...I proper love that woman.
So basically Extro thinks that a 15 year old being persecuted by zealot parents who often use the phrase. 'my house my rules` to basicaly threaten a child with homelessness if they don't do everything they are told to, should not be able to seek independant confidential advice onfamily planning because Extro believes the parents have a right to force birth their own children.
A ruler who's been in power for a long time, for example thirteen years, is liable to think they are entitled to remain, no-one else can be as good, their opinions are supreme, all opposition must be crushed. It's happened here.
Others, like for example Mr Mugabe, have taken root and are unlikely to give up power before they're carried out in a box.
You also have the problem that with increasing time, you are more likely to have another president who is popular, but unfit to remain in office due to age-related mental degeneration.
If the opposition knows the presidency is automatically up for grabs at the end of 8 years there is no incentive to co-operate or get things achieved - the temptation to focus on the election is just as strong for them, and who goes into an election with a record of co-operation and trying to get things done? That was one of the things that made the right suspicious of McCain.
I am on the fence with term limits. On the one hand I agree with ^^ about consistency, but on the other hand I believe that campaigning takes up so much focus and attention and makes the incubant so careful that not a lot gets done. Especially when there is such an equaly divided legislature, if the Prez has to keep elections in mind, he can't focus as much on what needs doing that may be umpopular or contentious.
I don't like the two term limit. It changes the dynamic of politics when there is an assured lame duck half way through the second term. I think it's a negative and could represent a thwarting of democracy in the case of an excellent president enjoying great popularity. Yes there is the possibility that the president's party would win the third term, but the presidency is about the person as much as anything else.
Most people liked Clinton pretty well; he did a good job of walking the middle road and as a comedian once said, "That sly son of a bitch ran the SHIT out of this country."
Hi Cheerful, I was just coming on to ask you how Bill's speech had gone down! It's interesting that he wasn't allowed to be involved much in Gore's campaign and of course there was the Hillary issue last time - is this the first election in which he will play a real part, do you think?
<bet Gore wishes he'd sent Clinton to charm 500 or so Floridians...>
Anne Lamott was talking about Kennedy when she said "we all know he had the moral life of a red-ass baboon, but compared with Bush he's like Desmond Tutu." I think the same could be said for Clinton.
I was just remarking to DH that I missed ol' Bill, and here he is speaking truth to power.
I am glad the POTUS can only have 2 terms, though.
Too true math.
So I see that Clinton made a stirring speech today. Perhaps it is a pity that US presidents can only run for two terms. America really needs a strong effective president right now.
For me this really does sum up the difference between the two ideologies:
""If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility a we're-all-in-this-together society you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."
Don't forget female Nooka. That is usually how it works.
Extro -- how is 'explicit language' inappropriate when discussing sex? Surely clarity is to be encouraged? Do you prefer the nudge nudge wink wink approach?
Extro -- used to be popular especially among adherents of a well-known religious organisation, very effective at keeping things swept under the carpet [PJ]
Which is a direct accusation that Catholics used to frequently use your caricature of the traditional values approach AND implies that such an approach is effective at perpetuating child abuse. A serious claim. '
Sweeping things under the carpet is the most effective way to perpetuate child abuse. See no evil, heal no evil, speak no evil.. If the family is sacrosanct and the individual child has no real rights because the rights of the family trump those of the individual then the child is placed in a very vulnerable position. This is how so many girls and young women ended up being cast into the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland by their own families. It was akin to honour imprisonment and in some cases since the girls died from the tender mercies of the nuns it constituted indirect honour killing.
The sacredness of the family was an argument brought out by the Irish Bishops against the Health Act of 1953 on grounds that the state taking over the privilege of the family. Much of Catholic opposition to measures that would have made a real and positive difference to the lives of the poor in Ireland (vocational education, free comprehensive education, children's allowance, the Mother and Child Scheme for instance) arose because such measures were in conflict with Catholic Social Teaching, which allegedly placed the family first -- in Ireland this was shorthand for 'placed the make head of household first'.
As I said, I go to Mass, etc. -- I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but there is a heck of a lot of bathwater.
Math that's like saying that "raising taxes on millionaires to 75% isn't an anti-wealth position, just a pro-equality position." Even if it's pro-equality it still goes against someone (i.e. the wealthy.)
It's not necessarily either anti wealth or pro equality.
It might make sense economically-speaking or it might not. Tax policy is not decided on whims (anti wealth or pro equality for instance).
I'm feeling puzzled that it should be considered OK to abide by confidentiality in environments where it is apparently OK for children to talk to other trusted people in their lives and there will probably be very little repercussions for them if it did come out that they shared concerns of a sexual nature with a teacher; but totally wrong to do the same where parents may very well react very strongly, causing serious repercussions for the child.
The only conclusion, I can come to is that the 'sexually impure' (WTF) shoudl be punished whenever possible, especially if they are young and vulnerable.
Well fuck that. I want my children and their friends to feel safe if they need to confide in someone. If it's not me well that's sad and has some implications for my parenting, but it is more important that someone is there for them if they are troubled than for me to know what they are doing at all times. Just because they are young doesn't make them my possessions.
Anyway, apart from showing the warped thinking of someone who identifies as a Republican (although not in fact an American voter) I'm not sure this conversation helps anyone to understand the current election.
If someone said "a certain well-known ethnic group engages in violence fuelled by its hip-hop culture", would I be going too far to suggest that it was a reference to blacks and the person saying it may have racial bias?
I added Catholic because it is well-known that is the religious organisation with the highest profile sexual abuse scandal. And yes, they were wrong to oppress victims. Few would argue with that.
I'm a devout Catholic (prayer sessions twice daily) but I'm afraid I have to agree with Piglet John. I was very pleased when the Church
finally gave an official apology.
Sadly an apology isn't enough. I do hope history will never repeat itself in regards to any religion sweeping child abuse under the carpet. From personal experience, I know that the damage of being dismissed can sometimes outweigh the pain of the abuse.
Disclaimer: yes, I know there are other religions that do what the Church has done in the past, I only specified Catholicism as it had already been mentioned.
Extro adds the word "Catholic" inside his own head to what I wrote.
Unclear what point he is making about the church oppressing victims and sweeping crime under the carpet for many years.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.