Some number stuff on Iraq and Bush

[Skybird]

As always with complex survey questionaires, information can only be gained from such polls when one does not pick single items, but sees the whole of it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=272
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271

Just to make Sixpack a happy reader again :)

[Oberon]

And our survey says...!

[STEED]

I am not that surprised of the Iraq poll, people are getting fed up.

As for George Bush well it’s his last term in office, not much I can add.

[Ducimus]

As for George Bush well it’s his last term in office, not much I can add.


Yeah for term limits! :D

[Iceman]

As always with complex survey questionaires, information can only be gained from such polls when one does not pick single items, but sees the whole of it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=272
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271

Just to make Sixpack a happy reader again :)

Sniffing the dirty laundry again Skybird?....the glass is half full it's half empty....what's the point of your post but to point out the obvious...polls are worthless measurements since people are swayed like the wind.....or a bird on the wind even....Skybirds.

[scandium]

A single poll might not be terribly useful, but what he posted was a link to a series of polls conducted over time and showing a clear trend. When you look at the trend you can see that while yes, the public's views are shifting, it is shifting more and more in the same direction. Note that there is no "sway", opinions are not changing back and forth but in only one direction (south).

Perhaps you simply discounted the poll without even looking at (in which case why respond to a thread if you haven't read its contents?).

[Sixpack]

"Notably, men ages 50 and older who have not served in the military have become much less confident that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq. Fewer than half (45%) now say the U.S. is likely to achieve its goals, compared with 62% in December. By contrast, opinions among older male veterans have remained stable."

This part amused me.

[Iceman]

A single poll might not be terribly useful, but what he posted was a link to a series of polls conducted over time and showing a clear trend. When you look at the trend you can see that while yes, the public's views are shifting, it is shifting more and more in the same direction. Note that there is no "sway", opinions are not changing back and forth but in only one direction (south).

Perhaps you simply discounted the poll without even looking at (in which case why respond to a thread if you haven't read its contents?).

I don't know where you live but I live in the USA so I hear this crap every single day dude.I work for a communications company.You say no sway....and are looking at it over a 3 yr period now.....people are short sighted and live in the day of fast food and expect some miracle to happen in Iraq ...like can we "Super Size" freedom...and when the order is not up right away then we turn into aholes and abandon our leaders and the ones we were trying to help....our selves and others....I hope not.


Polls ....you listen to the polls....if you base your life on polls and the world around you I feel sorry for you...Most of the time most of the people are wrong....you go follow them.

[scandium]

Well dude, I live in what's called a democracy where we abide by such antiquated notions as "the will of the people" and all that. We elect our leaders who in turn are accountable to we, the people, who also pay their salaries through our tax dollars. We the people can appreciate when our government, having some inside knowledge we are not privy to (national secrets and all that) and consequently has to make a choice the leaves us puzzled, or is unpopular. That is one thing.

However, when our government makes a grave and unpopular decision, where the facts are well known in advance, but are manipulated by our leaders to drum up support for an agenda that serves neither the national security, the well being of the nation, nor that of its individual citizens, but instead only a self-serving agenda beholden and benefitting an elite few, then a democracy would vote no confidence in this government and it'd be no more. The will of the people will have prevailed.

When that doesn't happen, when the government continues to manipulate the news and the public's perceptions through both overt and covert propoganda, and dismisses the will of the people as "mere polls" which show an ever increasing discord with the government's obstinate policy, then there is no democracy.

This is the way of the dictatorship, where "mere polls" and the will of the people are not what matters but the will of the goverment and the personality cult it builds up of its leader.

The democratic obligation of dismissing a goverment, through a vote of no confidence or whatever other (legal) means available, when it no longer governs in accordance with the will of the people is not "abandoning your leaders", for it is they who have abandoned you.

[Skybird]

Since some guys cannot help themselves any better than to question the methodology:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1042
For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For results based on form 1 (N=710) and form 2 (N=695) the sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

does not work much different with scientific examinations, only their confidence level may be set to a tougher criterion.

And this:
http://people-press.org/reports/methodology.php3

Scandium is right. the single values, the single point of time is not the important thing. The trend over a time period is the valuable information to gain from such polls.

But I admit, with regard to my very special friendship with my ol' buddy George, this finding had it's special charm for me: "The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." :lol: :-j

I wonder what I will do once he is no longer in office. Maybe he really should get a third trial. Term, I mean. Damn constitution.

[Type XXIII]

Yup, George Bush's popularity is falling. We all knew that.

Skybird: no one has questioned the methods. I'm positively surprised about this. Few things anger me more than when people are dismissing polls because 'This poll can't be representative, no one asked me.' The statisticians know what they are doing.

It is George jr.'s last term in office. Maybe we can consider us lucky his term soon will be over, but I'm not really sure. I'm not supporting his actions while in office, but perhaps he can act unpopular because he doesn't have to worry about a re-election. The 'maximum two term' policy might be flawed.

On another hand, popularity is a bad measurement of how well a politician is doing. The population is easily swayed. IMO, democracy can be summed up in two quotes

"The majority is always wrong, the minority is seldom right."
- Henrik Ibsen

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchill

The meaning of the general population, is, as said, a bad measurement of anything, but when it comes to politics, it is the only measurement that works.

[Rockstar]

The circle of journalism.

TV news anchor reports: 'the war in Iraq is going terribly and the Bush administration has failed.

The next day a poll of 600 people is taken: how to you believe the war is going?

Answer of citizen, illegal migrant, resident alien or foreign national: ummm I think it's going terrible oh ya Bush sucks.

TV news anchor report: In todays news the current poll indicates most Americans think the war in Iraq is going terribly and Bush's popularity is at an all time low.

Lather rinse and repeat

[Sixpack]

Any catholics here ?

http://www.bush2004.com/images/bush_halo.gif

[TteFAboB]

Bush is near Villepin's level, if the latter declared war on Iraq to free it from the Americans and re-install Saddam on power he could get his ratings back up. But don't be fooled, for the French to win he'd have to make a deal with Bush, and if Bush could jump out of Iraq he would also solve his problems and probably get his ratings up again too, so Bush would sign the deal.

Everybody wins.

[scandium]

Bush is near Villepin's level, if the latter declared war on Iraq to free it from the Americans and re-install Saddam on power he could get his ratings back up. But don't be fooled, for the French to win he'd have to make a deal with Bush, and if Bush could jump out of Iraq he would also solve his problems and probably get his ratings up again too, so Bush would sign the deal.

Everybody wins.

Except the French.

Recall at the beginning of the war that the only two countries Bush could armtwist (and these two didn't seem to need much arm twisting) into committing blood and treasure were Britain and Australia. Later a couple other countries briefly sent small numbers of troops (Poland for instance) but the rest of the "Coalition of the Willing" was that in little more than name only.

However, the UN wouldn't go along, there were mass protests around the world, the worldview held of Bush (and the image of the Americans who were tarnished by the association) sunk to that of Saddan Hussein (who at least was incapable of, let alone actively plotting, a war of aggression backed up with the world's largest inventory of WMD), and we witnessed the first ever, in history, alignment of historic arch enemies France-Russia-Germany.

Its been 3 years since now, and counting, with no end in sight and the worst fears of the day, as shouted by the rest of the world into America's deaf ear, have been realized: there were no WMD in Iraq, thus the rationale behind the war has proven false; its cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight; there is no "democracy" in Iraq, which rather hovers somewhere between civil war and an emergent Islamic theocracy; and we now have a new and fertile breeding ground for the next generation of battle hardened terorrists.

Sorry, nobody else is stupid enough to want any part of that mess. Even the American people have lost their appetite for it; despite being initially for it (though only after they were against it).

Reinstalling Saddam would change nothing as you can't put the Genie back into the bottle now.

[SUBMAN1]

How can people say this based on media reports??? The reports from the troops in the field say they are kicking the insurgent (should be changed to terrorist - insurgent is a favorable word) butt all over the place and call for increased troop levels!!! As always, a war should be fought and controlled by the military, not by the politicians. Bush made the right move diplomaticlaly, but made the wrong move after the fact in trying to control the war and discounting his generals calls for increased troop levels.

Crap, it has got to be tough at the top! Everything you do is scrutinized, even by me!

-S

PS. maybe the answer to future conflict is to turn all control over to the generals to fight the war. A lot of that has already happened, but still, the numbers of troops were not called by the generals, but by Rumsfield. Problem - the genereal who called for more troops was dismissed. Solution - re-instate him!

[Skybird]

The reports from the troops in the field say they are kicking the insurgent (should be changed to terrorist - insurgent is a favorable word) butt all over the place and call for increased troop levels

Strange. As far as I stumbled over them, comments by troops in the field, or veterans that had returned, and that were questoned on their evaluation anonymously and not in front of a camera, said exactly the opposite. Since over a year. And in the last 18 months I must have linked to 1 or 2 anonymous polls amonst troops in Iraq with results indicating that their morale and understanding why they should stay is slowly but constantly decreasing. And lastly: operation swarmer, a wonderful effort to polish George's image again - but so far a strike into empty space only. Some weapon supplies, some arrest, that'S all. A little bit too minor for an operation of this scale. must have something to do with this thing they call asymmetrical warfare. Next time they better hold a maneuver inside the Oval Office, it's easier to organioze and serves the same purpose.

But let's hunker down with familiar illusions some longer, makes us feel warm and comfortable. :up:

[TankHunter]

Since some guys cannot help themselves any better than to question the methodology:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1042
For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For results based on form 1 (N=710) and form 2 (N=695) the sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

does not work much different with scientific examinations, only their confidence level may be set to a tougher criterion.

And this:
http://people-press.org/reports/methodology.php3

Scandium is right. the single values, the single point of time is not the important thing. The trend over a time period is the valuable information to gain from such polls.

But I admit, with regard to my very special friendship with my ol' buddy George, this finding had it's special charm for me: "The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." :lol: :-j

I wonder what I will do once he is no longer in office. Maybe he really should get a third trial. Term, I mean. Damn constitution.

What more can you expect when the guy doesn’t go out and defend his views, and the far left goes after him with a baseball bat every day?

[scandium]

What more can you expect when the guy doesn’t go out and defend his views, and the far left goes after him with a baseball bat every day?

Yeah its not like he doesn't give the left ammo or anything... you know, like spending 1/3rd of his presidency either on vacation or at one of his vacation retreats (Camp David, "the ranch", etc) while the country he's supposedly running has been at war with two countries... or the massive tax cuts while again, spending hundreds of billions waging war on two countries (because as everyone knows its only the troops who have to make sacrifices during a time of war while everyone else should support them by... shopping)... or the dismissing of anyone in his administration or the military who dares to voice an opinion different from his own (like the General who insisted at least 300,000 troops would be needed for a war with Iraq) as well as public opinion (mere "polls")... and I could go and on but what's the point? The American people are already only too aware of how inept this President is. The consolation is he only has less than two years to go in office so there shouldn't be too many more things for him to screw up.

[Skybird]

I wonder if his wealthy family will be sentenced to pay compensation for the mess this guy has created, and will have to give up their wealth for that, hand it to the state and the national community, at least his family's wealth is George's wealth as well, right? Every normal citizen would be held responsible in a comparable way - to compensate for incompetence and damage done by paying for the repair of the mess one has created.

But that is only a dream. There is no justice, on their level, and no compensation and of course no penalty.

[TankHunter]

What more can you expect when the guy doesn’t go out and defend his views, and the far left goes after him with a baseball bat every day?

Yeah its not like he doesn't give the left ammo or anything... you know, like spending 1/3rd of his presidency either on vacation or at one of his vacation retreats (Camp David, "the ranch", etc) while the country he's supposedly running has been at war with two countries... or the massive tax cuts while again, spending hundreds of billions waging war on two countries (because as everyone knows its only the troops who have to make sacrifices during a time of war while everyone else should support them by... shopping)... or the dismissing of anyone in his administration or the military who dares to voice an opinion different from his own (like the General who insisted at least 300,000 troops would be needed for a war with Iraq) as well as public opinion (mere "polls")... and I could go and on but what's the point? The American people are already only too aware of how inept this President is. The consolation is he only has less than two years to go in office so there shouldn't be too many more things for him to screw up.

A. I somehow suspect that those are working vacations. I.E. if the center of government was in a ranch outside of a small town, he would likely be quite content there.
B. Well, if it wasn’t for said tax cuts, the recession that the US was in, would have been a lot worse. But I do agree, he is a big spender, but we are at war, so what can one expect?
C. I would rather have a guy in office who is aggressive and pigheaded, than someone who is overly cautious. It is best to error on the side of aggression, instead of doing so on the side of caution when in a time of war. Anyway it is a war, mistakes happen. It is best to learn from them and move on.

[scandium]

A. I somehow suspect that those are working vacations. I.E. if the center of government was in a ranch outside of a small town, he would likely be quite content there.
B. Well, if it wasn’t for said tax cuts, the recession that the US was in, would have been a lot worse. But I do agree, he is a big spender, but we are at war, so what can one expect?
C. I would rather have a guy in office who is aggressive and pigheaded, than someone who is overly cautious. It is best to error on the side of aggression, instead of doing so on the side of caution when in a time of war. Anyway it is a war, mistakes happen. It is best to learn from them and move on.

A. Interesting point, I wonder why no country has ever located the seat of its government in a ranch outside of a small town. But its certainly preferable to suspect he spends 1/3rd of his presidency on working vacations rather than actually at work, working. Isn't working vacation" a bit of an oxymoron?

But hey, being President is hard work. And the guy's only paid a salary of $400,000 a year, so if he needs to earn it by spending 4 months of the year "working" at his ranch (clearing brush and stuff, falling off mountain bikes, or whatever else he does there), Camp David, or another retreat while the rest of the country makes do with the occassional long weekend (and a couple weeks a year vacation, if they're lucky) then who can complain? Its not like his position's so important it demands at least as much time on the job as that of the poor guy who has to punch his 40 hour week, every week, serving hamburgers and fries or mopping floors for minimum wage.

B. Ah good old fashioned, and discredited, Reaganomics and the trickle down theory (quick what's that tinklink sound? why its the sound of the rich taking a whizz on your face). Having taken a couple economics courses I rather believe the fact that the recession isn't any more severe is in spite of the tax cuts, and not because of them.

The problem with giving tax cuts to the rich is that it doesn't affect their spending one bit. When times are lean they don't have to postpone that vacation to disneyland, cutback on meals out or hold off on upgrading their PC or replacing their 5 year old car. Its the working people that have to do those things, and its the resultant loss of spending (the fuel of the economy) that leads to, and worsens, recessions. You give a taxcut to the rich and the only thing you affect is the money they invest, and investments aren't what drives the economy. All this does is create deficits (less revenue for the government, thanks to the taxcuts, and a smaller taxable base to regain it from later since the taxcuts aren't growing the economy). And if there's one thing Bush has excelled at, its creating deficits and increasing the size of the foreign held mortgage on the good 'ole USA.

C. Apparently you're not the only one. While many polls, on the one hand, rake Bush over the coals on any one of a number of issues, the same polls also show strong percentages of people citing Bush's insistence on remaining steadfast 'no matter what' as his best leadership quality. I find this behaviour really puzzling, but probably because I much prefer a leader who is willing to realize his mistakes, analyze them to see where he went wrong, accept the input from others who disagree with him and factor it into his thinking, and then have the courage to announce he was wrong and what his plans are to make things right.

Others seem to see it as more courageous and honourable to fire anyone who publicly disagrees with you, dismiss the opinions of the people you govern, and cling to the same course of action without reflection and no matter the consequences. Its a good thing he's not in charge of anything really important, like the federal government or the military... oh wait.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

Thank goodness it's George Bushs last "kick at the cat" term, seeing that his popularity is falling...........but how much damage did he do to the american economy and national debt???????

With Georges popularity this low and falling, I doubt they'll be going to invade Iran........likely the Iranians are smart enough to figure that one out.

[Skybird]

Thank goodness it's George Bushs last "kick at the cat" term, seeing that his popularity is falling...........but how much damage did he do to the american economy and national debt???????

With Georges popularity this low and falling, I doubt they'll be going to invade Iran........likely the Iranians are smart enough to figure that one out.

INVADE...??? :huh:

Even me never thought George could be so braindead that he would want to invade Iran.

[STEED]

Thank goodness it's George Bushs last "kick at the cat" term, seeing that his popularity is falling...........but how much damage did he do to the american economy and national debt???????

With Georges popularity this low and falling, I doubt they'll be going to invade Iran........likely the Iranians are smart enough to figure that one out.

INVADE...??? :huh:

Even me never thought George could be so braindead that he would want to invade Iran.

Yes he has done his bit time to hand over to who ever.

[scandium]

Thank goodness it's George Bushs last "kick at the cat" term, seeing that his popularity is falling...........but how much damage did he do to the american economy and national debt???????

With Georges popularity this low and falling, I doubt they'll be going to invade Iran........likely the Iranians are smart enough to figure that one out.

INVADE...??? :huh:

Even me never thought George could be so braindead that he would want to invade Iran.

There was a lot of speculation back in the run up to the Iraq war, and the immediate aftermath following the fall of Baghdad, that Bush wouldn't be content with one "domino" down but would simply use it as a spring board to attack other countries he listed in his famous "Axis of Evil" speech.

If I recall correctly only Iraq, North Korea and Iran were named in it but NK presented a problem: unlike the other "Axis" members (which interestingly had no formal relations and in the case of Iraq/Iran were bitter enemies from long ago), NK actually had nuclear weapons and it was, and still is, thought probable that if invaded they would use them (after all what good is such a deterrent if you have no intention of using it?).

Thus it evolved that Syria was substituted for NK by virtue of its proxy to Iraq, and small size and military. So, many thought that having "successfully" toppled Baghdad so quickly that it would only be a matter of time before Bush used it as a springboard to move first against Syria, and once the two were pacified and consolidated with puppet governments and sufficient military bases, Iran.

However things didn't quite work out that way with the uprising in Iraq and the result that that the US military has been bogged down by that insurgency ever since. Now, in hindsight, having seen how difficult it can be to pacify even a small, starved country, but one that's determined to resist foreign occupation, notions of further foreign adventures in even bigger countries (Iran) do seem rather laughable. But had things gone smoother in Iraq, who knows? There has, ever since the routing of the Taliban from Afghanistan, certainly been much of the same kind of swagger and accusations leveled toward both Syria and Iran that were pointed at Iraq during the runup to the invasion.

In any case, if this president's personal documents are ever unsealed and as currently classified info becomes declassified, historians will learn exactly what his intentions toward Iran and Syria were. All we can do 'til then is speculate. Personally I think if Iraq had gone as smoothly as Afghanistan, Syria would already be an occupied state as well and the US would already be fighting in Iran.

But not the way things turned out now. Iraq is a disaster and Bush is a lame duck while the country seems to have lost its appetite for war.

[Skybird]

Trust me. No part of the american military seriously prepares for a ground invasion of Iran. Air strikes yes, special commands for recce and targetting: yes, invasion like Iraq: no. The terrain is not for that, the country's size is not for that, the population's attitude is not for that. Even Bush knows that. They will attacl Iran sooner or later, but not by means of an invasion.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650&highlight=

[TLAM Strike]

Trust me. No part of the american military seriously prepares for a ground invasion of Iran. Air strikes yes, special commands for recce and targetting: yes, invasion like Iraq: no. The terrain is not for that, the country's size is not for that, the population's attitude is not for that. Even Bush knows that. They will attacl Iran sooner or later, but not by means of an invasion.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650&highlight= The US Marines ("Teufelshunds" to you Germans) might, they probably train to invade Hell its self! Semper Fi, Marine Corps way is do or die! :rock:

[Oberon]

The Marines train to invade hell, whilst the SAS train to infiltrate Hell and assassinate Satan.

[scandium]

Trust me. No part of the american military seriously prepares for a ground invasion of Iran. Air strikes yes, special commands for recce and targetting: yes, invasion like Iraq: no. The terrain is not for that, the country's size is not for that, the population's attitude is not for that. Even Bush knows that. They will attacl Iran sooner or later, but not by means of an invasion.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650&highlight=

Looks like an interesting thread (just skimmed the first part of it so far) but I agree with what you're saying here. But at the time I thought Bush at least a little crazy to follow up on Afghanistan so quickly (and with Bin Laden still on the run) with an invasion of Iraq.

I didn't forsee it putting up the resistance it since has, but I didn't believe any of the pretexts offered for the invasion, nor did I see the point of committing so many troops and treasure to toppling a contained, pacified regime. And having embarked on his little Iraqi adventure I, at the time, didn't really think there was much he was incapable of, no matter how stupid or irrational, being that he is something of a feeble minded dolt surrounded by ditto heads (he is, in my mind, the worst American president ever).

[TankHunter]

A. I somehow suspect that those are working vacations. I.E. if the center of government was in a ranch outside of a small town, he would likely be quite content there.
B. Well, if it wasn’t for said tax cuts, the recession that the US was in, would have been a lot worse. But I do agree, he is a big spender, but we are at war, so what can one expect?
C. I would rather have a guy in office who is aggressive and pigheaded, than someone who is overly cautious. It is best to error on the side of aggression, instead of doing so on the side of caution when in a time of war. Anyway it is a war, mistakes happen. It is best to learn from them and move on.

A. Interesting point, I wonder why no country has ever located the seat of its government in a ranch outside of a small town. But its certainly preferable to suspect he spends 1/3rd of his presidency on working vacations rather than actually at work, working. Isn't working vacation" a bit of an oxymoron?

But hey, being President is hard work. And the guy's only paid a salary of $400,000 a year, so if he needs to earn it by spending 4 months of the year "working" at his ranch (clearing brush and stuff, falling off mountain bikes, or whatever else he does there), Camp David, or another retreat while the rest of the country makes do with the occassional long weekend (and a couple weeks a year vacation, if they're lucky) then who can complain? Its not like his position's so important it demands at least as much time on the job as that of the poor guy who has to punch his 40 hour week, every week, serving hamburgers and fries or mopping floors for minimum wage.

B. Ah good old fashioned, and discredited, Reaganomics and the trickle down theory (quick what's that tinklink sound? why its the sound of the rich taking a whizz on your face). Having taken a couple economics courses I rather believe the fact that the recession isn't any more severe is in spite of the tax cuts, and not because of them.

The problem with giving tax cuts to the rich is that it doesn't affect their spending one bit. When times are lean they don't have to postpone that vacation to disneyland, cutback on meals out or hold off on upgrading their PC or replacing their 5 year old car. Its the working people that have to do those things, and its the resultant loss of spending (the fuel of the economy) that leads to, and worsens, recessions. You give a taxcut to the rich and the only thing you affect is the money they invest, and investments aren't what drives the economy. All this does is create deficits (less revenue for the government, thanks to the taxcuts, and a smaller taxable base to regain it from later since the taxcuts aren't growing the economy). And if there's one thing Bush has excelled at, its creating deficits and increasing the size of the foreign held mortgage on the good 'ole USA.

C. Apparently you're not the only one. While many polls, on the one hand, rake Bush over the coals on any one of a number of issues, the same polls also show strong percentages of people citing Bush's insistence on remaining steadfast 'no matter what' as his best leadership quality. I find this behaviour really puzzling, but probably because I much prefer a leader who is willing to realize his mistakes, analyze them to see where he went wrong, accept the input from others who disagree with him and factor it into his thinking, and then have the courage to announce he was wrong and what his plans are to make things right.

Others seem to see it as more courageous and honourable to fire anyone who publicly disagrees with you, dismiss the opinions of the people you govern, and cling to the same course of action without reflection and no matter the consequences. Its a good thing he's not in charge of anything really important, like the federal government or the military... oh wait.

A. My point was this. I some how suspect that he is engaging in affairs of state while he is on the ranch.
B. So taxing people to death helps the economy? Reducing the amount of money available helps the economy? Putting people into debt helps the economy? If you reduce taxes people will spend more. If the rich gets more money they spend it on investments. If small businessmen get more money they expand their establishments. Am I off on this statement? Also this tax cut for the rich is inaccurate, it was an across the board tax cut, correct? Thus how is it a tax cut for the rich, or shall the rich be punished for being rich? With the investments, how do companies expand, and engage in R&D? I would assume that investments help in this greatly.
C. You know, the constitution was designed to keep a popular mob from running the show. So I see no problem with Bush not paying attention to polls. But he should not stand there as a target. He should put forth his arguments constantly.

[TLAM Strike]

The Marines train to invade hell, whilst the SAS train to infiltrate Hell and assassinate Satan. So I guess the Marines would take him alive? ;)

[TankHunter]

Trust me. No part of the american military seriously prepares for a ground invasion of Iran. Air strikes yes, special commands for recce and targetting: yes, invasion like Iraq: no. The terrain is not for that, the country's size is not for that, the population's attitude is not for that. Even Bush knows that. They will attacl Iran sooner or later, but not by means of an invasion.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650&highlight=

We wont invade Iran because we would not have the will for it. Iraq destroyed all will that we had. We would engage in air strikes, but not an invasion. The next time the US engages in an invasion willingly, would be in a generation or more.

[Oberon]

The Marines train to invade hell, whilst the SAS train to infiltrate Hell and assassinate Satan. So I guess the Marines would take him alive? ;)

Touche :up:

[Skybird]

Looks like an interesting thread (just skimmed the first part of it so far) but I agree with what you're saying here. But at the time I thought Bush at least a little crazy to follow up on Afghanistan so quickly (and with Bin Laden still on the run) with an invasion of Iraq.

I didn't forsee it putting up the resistance it since has, but I didn't believe any of the pretexts offered for the invasion, nor did I see the point of committing so many troops and treasure to toppling a contained, pacified regime. And having embarked on his little Iraqi adventure I, at the time, didn't really think there was much he was incapable of, no matter how stupid or irrational, being that he is something of a feeble minded dolt surrounded by ditto heads (he is, in my mind, the worst American president ever).

No problem. I think I understand what you mean We had some very hot-tempered discussion back then in 2003. If some people back then would have had their will according to what they said, American troops would have entered Syria in 2004, Iran in 2005, and the Middle East would have been completely pacified at the time you and me are talking now. :lol: Haven't heared much of them since then. I wonder why :lol:

[scandium]

A. My point was this. I some how suspect that he is engaging in affairs of state while he is on the ranch.
B. So taxing people to death helps the economy? Reducing the amount of money available helps the economy? Putting people into debt helps the economy? If you reduce taxes people will spend more. If the rich gets more money they spend it on investments. If small businessmen get more money they expand their establishments. Am I off on this statement? Also this tax cut for the rich is inaccurate, it was an across the board tax cut, correct? Thus how is it a tax cut for the rich, or shall the rich be punished for being rich? With the investments, how do companies expand, and engage in R&D? I would assume that investments help in this greatly.
C. You know, the constitution was designed to keep a popular mob from running the show. So I see no problem with Bush not paying attention to polls. But he should not stand there as a target. He should put forth his arguments constantly.

A. Okay. Though to be honest, outside of clearing brush we can only hope he's spending that third of his time in affairs of state. Though to many that's probably good enough since its not affairs with an Intern in the Oval Office.

B. I think you misinterpreted what I wrote rather completely. Basically it boils down to this: the bulk of the taxcut (I don't have exact figures at hand but it was something like 80%+) went to the top income brackets. People at those income levels tend to invest extra monies rather than spend them, while for people at lower income levels the tendency (more and more the lower you go) is to spend it rather than invest it. Its this spending that fuels the economy and provides the tax base for governments at all levels to gain revenue.

For a taxcut to be effective, that is if its intended to fight a recession, it needs to result in an increase in spending. You get the biggest increase in spending at the lowest to median income levels so it follows that a taxcut that isn't aimed at those income levels is not going to be effective . What Bush did was even worse because it combined an ineffective taxcut (draining the federal coffers of funds that are put into the wrong hands) with greatly increased federal spending (which with a smaller taxbase and increased spending means deficit spending and inflationary pressure).

Inflation is the killer because it robs the working classes of their buying power and further decreases real spending which increases the trend toward further recession and on it goes. I think it was only the wizardry of Allan Greenspan that kept things together, and he was one of the opponents of further tax cuts.

Nowhere did I say you had to tax people to death. In fact up until recently its even been accepted policy (as elaborated by the economist Keynes) to rack up whatever deficits were necessary as long as it puts money into the economy. The OPEC crisis of the '70s and spiraling deficits, recession, and inflation led to some rethinking of these old ideas though and today its inflation (and deficits) which are regarded as the real threat to economic stability and that a certain amount of unemployment is natural and not to tinkered with.

BTW, what I keep calling "spending" in economic terms is really referred to as "consumption"... that's the holy triad of macroeconomics: income, consumption (public spending), and spending (government spending) with the various tools the government has at its disposal to manipulate the three variables for an optimal economy (which will naturally ebb and flow... its the booms and busts that are undesirable).

C. If he spent more time on the job and less in seclusion at the ranch he'd probably be in a better position to convince people he was 'hard at work' (at something other than clearing Brush) ;)

[Squires]

These polls are responded to by people who:
-have the attention span of a bug
-whose lives are absorbed by reality shows such as American Idol and Survivor
-whose only knowledge of what is going on in Iraq come from the liberal media that want Bush to fail at any cost

Given the people I deal with on a daily basis, I'd rather have Bush running the country than the people taking these polls.

[August]

A. Okay. Though to be honest, outside of clearing brush we can only hope he's spending that third of his time in affairs of state. Though to many that's probably good enough since its not affairs with an Intern in the Oval Office.

You seem to think the President punches out on a time clock when he leaves the Oval office like some blue collar schmoe leaves the factory to kick back with some beers at the bar on his way home to the wife.

Apparently you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what the job of POTUS entails. Regardless of his location he is on the job 24/7/365. There is nothing he can do in the White House that he can't, and doesn't, do at whether he's at Camp David, flying in Airforce One or at his ranch, and he has the staff and cabinet to ensure it, using the most sophisticated communications network in the world.

Wherever he is he still gets a full round of daily briefings in addition to the regular schedule of meetings and appointments.

[August]

And i might add, since nobody has replied yet, that this goes for whoever is POTUS whether he's a Republican, Democrat or Independant (hey, it could happen!). :yep:

[scandium]

You seem to think the President punches out on a time clock when he leaves the Oval office like some blue collar schmoe leaves the factory to kick back with some beers at the bar on his way home to the wife.

Apparently you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what the job of POTUS entails. Regardless of his location he is on the job 24/7/365. There is nothing he can do in the White House that he can't, and doesn't, do at whether he's at Camp David, flying in Airforce One or at his ranch, and he has the staff and cabinet to ensure it, using the most sophisticated communications network in the world.

Wherever he is he still gets a full round of daily briefings in addition to the regular schedule of meetings and appointments.

The topic isn't about the inner workings of the position of POTUS, which I'd venture I have at least as clear an idea as anyone else who regularly reads newspapers and watches the news , but about polls and perceptions which that point of mine went to the heart of. Its been the topic of at least two major newspaper articles (that I've read), and I'll post some relevant excerpts from the one I'd enccountered fairly recently (from the Washington Post, Aug 3/05):

"Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

[snip]

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs. [also he was either on, or just returning from vacation during the critical first days of Katrina]

[snip]

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term."

more and full article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201703.html


Another, this time from USA Today and going all the way back to August 3/01:

"White House to move to Texas for a while

WASHINGTON — Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

[snip]

But some Republican loyalists worry about critics who say Bush lets Vice President Cheney and other top officials do most of the work. They're also concerned about the reaction of the average American, who gets 13 vacation days each year.

"It can foster other images," says William Benoit, a professor of political communication at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "Maybe he's lazy, maybe he's not determined. It feeds into the impression that he's not in charge.""

more and full article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm

Those are the kinds of articles I based that point on. As I said in my first post, its one of the many things that may contribute to his low poll numbers. I gave other examples as well. Maybe they have no influence on public opinion, or maybe they are the kind of things that become nestled, insidiously, within the public concious. In any case, that particular point was the focus of articles in major publications (Washington Post, USA Today) with massive distribution so its a fair point regardless of how you personally interpret his time away from the Whitehouse.

[August]

Those are the kinds of articles I based that point on. As I said in my first post, its one of the many things that may contribute to his low poll numbers. I gave other examples as well. Maybe they have no influence on public opinion, or maybe they are the kind of things that become nestled, insidiously, within the public concious. In any case, that particular point was the focus of articles in major publications (Washington Post, USA Today) with massive distribution so its a fair point regardless of how you personally interpret his time away from the Whitehouse.

Well i'll agree that at one time being away from the White House was a limitation to the job of President, but with todays high tech communications it makes little difference where he is physically. If anything being in a more comfortable environment could help him get even more work done. I know I certainly would, especially if i lived in a museum like the White House where every item and piece of furniture is a historic national treasure.

Of course that doesn't stop his political opponents from trying to give the impression he isn't at work if he's not in the Oval office. If such things have indeed become insidiously nestled in the public consciousness then it is the fault of these so called news outlets.

[kholemann]

President Bush is doing what needs to be done and he dosn't care about any polls. It is the way things should be. The people spoke long after the war began in the only real poll that counts, the election in November of '04 where he was overwhelmingly re-elected. Say what you will, there is nothing you can do about it. I hope that the next President has as much intestinal fortitude as our current President. It seems that no matter how many times he has to repeat his beliefs, the press doesn't seem to report it unless its live (when they can't stop him). They only want to editorialize rather than play the actual quotes the President said.

[Skybird]

where he was overwhelmingly re-elected.

51:49, or 53:47 if I remember correctly.

[Bort]

51:49, or 53:47 if I remember correctly.

Not to mention the fact that the US Electoral college system discourages many from voting, because the states they live in are already "spoken for". If it had been a nationwide popular election for Prez, Kerry would have won in a landslide. :shifty: Not that a popular presidential election will be happening any time soon, it is clearly to the disadvantage of the GOP, everyone having an equal say.

[Fish]

Joey Cheek for president! :yep:

[STEED]

* Bort]51:49, or 53:47 if I remember correctly.

Not to mention the fact that the US Electoral college system discourages many from voting, because the states they live in are already "spoken for". If it had been a nationwide popular election for Prez, Kerry would have won in a landslide. :shifty: Not that a popular presidential election will be happening any time soon, it is clearly to the disadvantage of the GOP, everyone having an equal say.

Just to say there is an old joke in Scotland people are so thick if Labour puts a pig up as a candidate, with a Labour flag on it, in a safe Labour seat. The pig would win in a landslide vote. That one goes back to the 1960's and still is the case today. :nope:

[Iceman]

where he was overwhelmingly re-elected.

51:49, or 53:47 if I remember correctly.

Get over it already dang lol....quit making so much dirty laundry Sky lol.

http://www.ericreiche.net/gallery/Fun/org/****_dirty_laundry.jpg

JK ya ..ya know I couldn't resist the pic should be an avatar...

[kholemann]

* Bort]51:49, or 53:47 if I remember correctly.

Not to mention the fact that the US Electoral college system discourages many from voting, because the states they live in are already "spoken for". If it had been a nationwide popular election for Prez, Kerry would have won in a landslide. :shifty: Not that a popular presidential election will be happening any time soon, it is clearly to the disadvantage of the GOP, everyone having an equal say.

Be sour if you like but President Bush got more votes than any candidate in the history of elections in the USA. It is clearly a disadvantage of the Democrats when it comes to numbers of people voting and geographical coverage.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/scorecard/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/

Just like there is a house (votes based on population) and senate (all states get only two votes) there is a balance in how the President is elected via the electoral college. Here is a link to a history lesson proving that there is no bias:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

[Bort]

Be sour if you like but President Bush got more votes than any candidate in the history of elections in the USA. It is clearly a disadvantage of the Democrats when it comes to numbers of people voting and geographical coverage.
True, but he got the lowest margin of victory ever for an incumbent president- barely more than 1%-if not for the electoral college, a Bush loss would have been far more likely.
Just like there is a house (votes based on population) and senate (all states get only two votes) there is a balance in how the President is elected via the electoral college. Here is a link to a history lesson proving that there is no bias:
Balance would imply some sort of equality, the electoral college empowers a person in Wyoming with three times the vote I have in Illinois. I understand that all the small states would whine about having less power in a popular election, but I think that one person, one vote is far more fair and democratic.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

My gut tells me this war in Iraq is a failure.

I never had a good feeling when it started. Although when Bush Senior went into Kuwait, I didn't feel there would be a problem.

Bush Senior went in quick, got out quick and didn't have a real problem. Bush Junior went in quick and dragged his heals getting out, now there's a problem.

How many thousand dead and injured Americans for a failed war?????

Weapons of mass distruction.........what a joke. (Boy does the American public ever blindly believe everything the U.S. government and media says).

[August]

* Bort]I understand that all the small states would whine about having less power in a popular election, but I think that one person, one vote is far more fair and democratic.

But this is the "United States", not the "United Individuals".

Were this somehow to become the law of the land I believe it would soon cause a civil war that would make the last one seem tame by comparison. Modern weaponry alone would see to that.

[Bort]

But this is the "United States", not the "United Individuals".
Yes, but if all men are created equal, than their votes should be equal too.
Were this somehow to become the law of the land I believe it would soon cause a civil war that would make the last one seem tame by comparison. Modern weaponry alone would see to that. That war could start if the present situation continues as well...

[The Avon Lady]

Were this somehow to become the law of the land I believe it would soon cause a civil war that would make the last one seem tame by comparison. Modern weaponry alone would see to that.
What do you base yourself on?

I believe the vast majority of US citizens, myself included, would prefer to do away with the electoral college. Since the 1970's, polls have shown that 60% or more of those question favored its elimination.

I have yet to see a poll how many people would start a civil war (and how to identify your foes) should the electoral college be dismantled.

For reference, see this report (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/reform/report_electoral.htm) for reference and as a source of discussion.

[August]

What do you base yourself on?.

This does a fair job of explaining it:

http://www.csupomona.edu/~reshaffer/eleccolx.htm

[tycho102]

This is something that always gets me.

If the New York cops bust into an apartment and find nitric acid, RDX, toluene, glycol, hot plates, and beakers, it's called "bomb making equipment".

If the United States Army bust into RV's out in the middle of the desert and find thiodiglycol, ethylphosphonothiolate, continuous mixing piping, artillery shells with voids, sealing plugs, and several concealed howitzers, it's called "pesticide dispersal equipment".

[The Avon Lady]

What do you base yourself on?.

This does a fair job of explaining it:

http://www.csupomona.edu/~reshaffer/eleccolx.htm
Explaining it, yes, but nothing about producing a civil war. And this article appears to agree that a majority of the US population are indeed for the abolishment of the electoral college.

[Type XXIII]

Very few countries practice one man - one vote fully.

It is common to let the votes from sparsely populated areas weigh more. This is conscious district politics and is intended to slow down centralization.

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

Also, the electoral college is elected on the "first past the post" principle, which means whichever party that gets a majority in a district, gets all the seats for that district, no matter if the majority is 99% to 1% or 51% to 49%. Proportional representation would be more fair, and make it more attractive for people to vote for smaller parties.

[August]

What do you base yourself on?.

This does a fair job of explaining it:

http://www.csupomona.edu/~reshaffer/eleccolx.htm
Explaining it, yes, but nothing about producing a civil war. And this article appears to agree that a majority of the US population are indeed for the abolishment of the electoral college.

Well what do you think the result will be when 3-5 states dominate every election? When candidates can basically ignore everyone outside of those few states? You think you have voter disenfranchisement now...

In any case it won't happen without an amendment to the constitution that will require the ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
That won't happen...

[Konovalov]

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Back home in Australia we have always only had two viable parties being the Labour Party and the Liberals (actually conservative). In the case of the USA the reason for the polarization there I think has more to do with the style of politics, gutter politics IMO, by both sides that has basically split the country right down the middle. Either you are red or blue. There is no middle ground it seems. You only have to look at US News Channels to view the absolute vindictive, spitefull and hate filled nature of US politics today. I think voters deserve a hell of a lot better than this.

[scandium]

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Back home in Australia we have always only had two viable parties being the Labour Party and the Liberals (actually conservative). In the case of the USA the reason for the polarization there I think has more to do with the style of politics, gutter politics IMO, by both sides that has basically split the country right down the middle. Either you are red or blue. There is no middle ground it seems. You only have to look at US News Channels to view the absolute vindictive, spitefull and hate filled nature of US politics today. I think voters deserve a hell of a lot better than this.

I think that is precisely because there are only two viable parties plus, as he mentioned, the 'first past the post' principle.

Here in Canada we have right now 4 major parties, and even though federal elections tend to come down to 2 parties (Liberals or Conservatives) the other 2 (the NDP and the Bloc) act as a check because they do win seats in the government - not enough to form the government, but enough to act as a check on it and prevent the black and white, or red and blue, we see in American politics.

[August]

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Back home in Australia we have always only had two viable parties being the Labour Party and the Liberals (actually conservative). In the case of the USA the reason for the polarization there I think has more to do with the style of politics, gutter politics IMO, by both sides that has basically split the country right down the middle. Either you are red or blue. There is no middle ground it seems. You only have to look at US News Channels to view the absolute vindictive, spitefull and hate filled nature of US politics today. I think voters deserve a hell of a lot better than this.

I think that is precisely because there are only two viable parties plus, as he mentioned, the 'first past the post' principle.

Here in Canada we have right now 4 major parties, and even though federal elections tend to come down to 2 parties (Liberals or Conservatives) the other 2 (the NDP and the Bloc) act as a check because they do win seats in the government - not enough to form the government, but enough to act as a check on it and prevent the black and white, or red and blue, we see in American politics.

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

[scandium]

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

Only during the election though, which only affects how the campaigns are run and influences who wins the race. Once the election is over so is the 3rd party influence. Best case scenario you get both parties controlling different levels of government where they have to work together to get a consensus. Worst case scenario you get what we see in the US now where one party controls all 3 levels of government (congress, the senate, and the executive branch) and the 49% of the electorate represented by the losing side are completely disenfranchised.

[August]

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

Only during the election though, which only affects how the campaigns are run and influences who wins the race. Once the election is over so is the 3rd party influence. Best case scenario you get both parties controlling different levels of government where they have to work together to get a consensus. Worst case scenario you get what we see in the US now where one party controls all 3 levels of government (congress, the senate, and the executive branch) and the 49% of the electorate represented by the losing side are completely disenfranchised.

And with more parties you get even higher percentages of disenfranchised voters. I can't see any value in electing a president who only gets a third or quarter of the vote.

[scandium]

And with more parties you get even higher percentages of disenfranchised voters. I can't see any value in electing a president who only gets a third or quarter of the vote.

Actually in parlimentary systems like we have here in Canada, we don't elect our leaders directly; rather, we elect members of the party they head and the party that wins the most seats becomes the government. Its leader then, who is also an elected member of parliment and won his seat in the same election, becomes Prime Minister. The party with the second most seats becomes the official opposition. That's just an aside.

I would say that because we have more than 2 parties that hold seats in government, that voter disenfranchisement is less of an issue because the ruling party often needs votes from the other parties in order to get a sufficient majority to pass legislation. This forces some degree of consenus since the legislation must have a broad enough appeal (beyond that of the majority party) to garner sufficient votes from its own members and attract enough from 1 or more other parties. Therefore even if the party you voted for isn't in power, they aren't neutered by the lack of it but still have some influence, especially if the elected party tries to pass radical legislation which can lead to the other parties putting their differences aside to defeat the government in a vote of no confidence (this doesn't happen often because of the risk of antagonizing the voters who elected the majority government).

[The Avon Lady]

We've got more parties in Israel than in Florida spring break season. :stare:

[Iceman]

We've got more parties in Israel than in Florida spring break season. :stare:

Lol AL

...Where there is no vision the people perish...it is nice to have diversity but a Union, a Team, needs to put aside the differences ..get behind the coach and the captain of the team and play to win....period...it doesn't work any other way....after a losing season...get another coach or capin...maybe walking the plank for people would be a good incentive. :gulp:

or I like...A city divided against itself cannot stand....same for a world.