Thread: Do you support the President of the USA?

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Well I will disagree with you (no shock). I voted for him and have been happy with the job he has done. Mind you I voted for him knowing that he was a man who cared more about his personal moral convictions then politics or public opinion. He does what he believe is right no matter what and takes responsibilities for his own mistakes. I haven't heard a politician say that.... ever. Do I agree with everything he has done, of course not. However I elected a man who would do what he says and be his own man irrespective of political party and he has done just that so I can't complain.

Psst... I wouldn't mention approval ratings against him. As bad as they may look the approval ratings for the Congress not only are lower they have hit the lowest in history. So no matter how unhappy people are they are more unhappy with the government in general then the President in particular. Kinda skews results there. Who knows, maybe that means people are finally catching on to who actually makes the laws in this country.

Then he should have just bought himself an island instead of being our commander in chief. As the leader of the top country in the world (hopefully still is), his job is to serve Americans, and to put our interests in front of his. If he wanted to hold his stance so strongly, he should have taken some other job.

However, I do agree with you that the President should not be the only one to be blamed for the troubles of this country. Both major parties have their share of wrongdoings, and need to clean up their act.

Originally Posted by Legend

Then he should have just bought himself an island instead of being our commander in chief. As the leader of the top country in the world (hopefully still is), his job is to serve Americans, and to put our interests in front of his. If he wanted to hold his stance so strongly, he should have taken some other job.

However, I do agree with you that the President should not be the only one to be blamed for the troubles of this country. Both major parties have their share of wrongdoings, and need to clean up their act.

Bein' the leader of a nation, or enythin' else for that matter, means that sometimes u must make decisions for the betterment of ur country; even if it's not popular amongst ur own ppl. If u look at the history of any country, not jus' ours, u can c that it's riddled wit leaders who have been put in positions where they've had ta make unpopular decisions that benefitted their country and it's citizens. Sometimes that's what bein' a leader is all 'bout, puttin' the needs of ur countrymen ahead of what they want.

That bein' said, I don' like Bush, simply put. Yet, I don' dislike him 'cause of his foreign policies, on that end I don' think he's doin' a bad job. He's tough when he has ta b and compromises wherever he can. I don' like him 'cause he's done such a terrible job wit his domestic policies, but he can' shoulder the blame alone. Yes, both parties have done their share of wrongdoings; but unfortunately, that's what happens when u have a country that is ran by career politicians. The majority of them r more concerned 'bout their own careers and political power, than tryin' ta actually do their jobs. That's where I respect Bush, I may not like him, but when he does take a stance; he stands firm by his decision and sees it through ta the end. That's rare amongst the constantly "flippin' sides" conundrum practices of our supposed leaders in Washington. It's like a "breath of fresh air" ta find someone in Washington that is willin' ta "stick by their guns" on certain issues, whether or not those guns r pointed in the right direction.

Originally Posted by divine_punishment

I'm not for or against him. I just wish people would stop heckling him. He has a job and he's doing it as best as he can. There's no need to make it so much harder! If Americans cannot support their leader, what kind of message does that send to the world? Any good he does will be overlooked because it seems that his own people are against it.

Thank you!!! Thats is what I was trying to say! I really am for this because I believe that he is really trying his best. And now even in other countries other poeple are getting the wrong idea.. I think people should try and see the positive instead of the negative.

Besides Gore and Carry were really stupid and would have made really bad Presidents. I mean everything they said contradicted themselves.

You know I hate it when this happens, people are so ill informed. Opinions really should only be formed if you have a real knowledge of what is going on.

First, public polls are based on a survey and frankly there is no data to suggest that the polls are truly accurate of public opinion or even valid. You think I buy anything the media tells me? NO. I offer proof that the majority of MEDIA polls are BS, look at the last election, they had Gore not “winning” but having WON the election in Florida (by a sizable margin…exit polls anyone?) when even after several “recounts” he DID NOT win. If you study statistical analysis then you will know better than to believe any poll that comes out of darn near anywhere period. I shall leave you will a “statistic” to prove my point. “90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, off the tops of people’s heads with no foundation.” Funny little paradox but really nails the true nature of statistics.

Second, I have said it before and will say it again. Bush DID NOT send us to Iraq, CONGRESS voted to go to war there. Bush is only responsible for how long we stay there and the actions taken while we are there. I will not make light of the deaths in Iraq as they are all worthy of the highest honor but the US solider death toll numbers are not anywhere near the death tolls of other wars. Not to mention the US death toll in Iraq is not accurate in determining the actual death toll of the “war.”

Now let me burst some bubbles and explain why the death toll isn’t reflective if the war in Iraq but rather the total ongoing operations in Iraq, including the war.

First the US is NOT at war with Iraq…

For us to be at war with another nation there has to be a battle occurring between our governmental forces and theirs…that ended VERY shortly after we invaded and when we captured Saddam…it was COMPLETELY over. GASP!

SO secondly what is happening now? We are aiding in battling insurgent militia groups of terrorist activities against the current and NEW government system in Iraq. That is not a WAR, at most you could say we are trying to prevent the out break of a civil war.

When the chances of a civil war are very likely to happen as soon as we are gone, you don’t just skip out. In fact we actually get involved in conflicts we had nothing to do with to begin with, just to put an end to such conflicts… BOISNA anyone? Or did you people forget that we didn’t get out of there until 2004 some 9 years after we went in there…Who was president then…Clinton? Seems they didn’t have a problem trying to keep the peace there…when we really had little to do with the cause of that conflict in comparison to Iraq.

Also once you blow the heck out of a country and tear down their governmental system…TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY, you don’t just up and skip out on them and say hey your problem. Weapons of Mass destruction? WHO CARES! The government in that country was committing genocide on its own people, that alone (if you have a shred of humanity and a bloody heart with compassion towards life in general) is reason enough to have gone in there.

I have friends in Iraq and once that are now home, NONE of them regret what we are doing there…simply because of what they saw when they got there.

As far as my opinion on Bush, I am not the president and I can’t possibly imagine what choices and decisions he has to make, I promise you what he is doing isn’t easy or easy to choose to do. At least he has some fortitude to stick by what he believes is right and not what a bunch of ignorant liars want you to believe. Can anyone say the same about the current Presidential candidates which “preach” against the supposed continuing war and how we should be out of there, yet NONE of the forerunners can “commit” to saying they will even be out of Iraq by the end of their first term? When most of them VOTED TO GO THERE? When I am privy to the exact information the President has and can really judge his decisions then I will form a positive or negative opinion on his actions, until then I will support him in what he chooses to do because that is the right thing for me to do.

Every President is going to do things right and things wrong, the best course of action is to be informed on what is really happening and pick candidates that are sincere and honest about what they will do for us, in all areas of office. I just am unsure there are any of those types of people really running for office anymore.

Originally Posted by Legend

Then he should have just bought himself an island instead of being our commander in chief. As the leader of the top country in the world (hopefully still is), his job is to serve Americans, and to put our interests in front of his. If he wanted to hold his stance so strongly, he should have taken some other job.

Actually that is how it is supposed to work in a Republic. You vote in a Representative and then trust them to do what they believe is best for their people. That trust is essential since they have to make decisions based on information they have we don't especially in matters of national security. That is why there is a history of US Representatives who have voted for what they believe to be the right decision in spite of popular opinion in their home state. If you don't trust them don't vote for them.

i dont support him at all i think that he is doing a bad job and i think he should be inpeached so that we can get a new good president but then again i would rather have bush then chainey as president so when they inpeach bush inpeach chainey to.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Actually that is how it is supposed to work in a Republic. You vote in a Representative and then trust them to do what they believe is best for their people. That trust is essential since they have to make decisions based on information they have we don't especially in matters of national security. That is why there is a history of US Representatives who have voted for what they believe to be the right decision in spite of popular opinion in their home state. If you don't trust them don't vote for them.

So are you saying you would totally be okay and not have a hint of anger if President Bush decides to do a 180 and suddenly do the opposite of whatever he's doing now?

As for national security, that wasn't even a big part why I'm not a fan of the administration. Mind you, I am not really big on hating President Bush. To say he is a puppet would be very disrespectful, but at the same time a lot of his decisions are based off the info given to him.

Right now, all I'm thinking is let's get to 08, get him out of the office and over with. After 2004 elections, I think many voters would wise up (both parties) and would not vote based on emotions and the mentality of "I rather have someone from my party in the office."