American politicians I do support and those I do not support

from JoeUser Forums

Here's a list of American politicians I support and American politicians I don't support. See if you can make out what the common denominators are:

 

SUPPORT

George W. Bush

Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Condi Rice

Colin Powell

Joe Liebermann

John McCain

Al Gore (until 2002)

Ronald Reagan

 

NO SUPPORT

John Kerry

Al Gore (since 2002)

Barack Obama

Nancy Pelosi

Ron Paul

David Duke

Robert Byrd

Jimmy Carter (double)

 

Notice that Sarah Palin is not on either list. I think she is too inexperienced for high office. But that doesn't make her a NO SUPPORT.

 

The common denominators that I use are those:

1. Anyone officially dumber than George W. Bush is NO SUPPORT (John Kerry).

2. Accept a Nobel Peace price even though you haven't done anything for peace and you are a NO SUPPORT (Gore, Carter). Take credit for another person's efforts and fraternise with the murderers of that person and you are a double NO SUPPORT (Carter).

3. Associate with white or black supremacists or the KKK and you are a NO SUPPORT (Byrd, Obama, Duke, Paul).

4. Fight communism or fascism and you are SUPPORT (Reagan, Clinton, Bush).

5. Defend Israel and/or other minorities in the middle east and you are a SUPPORT.

 

Plus I tend to prefer politicians who go to church/mosque/synagogue over politicians who don't and I prefer politicians who make an effort to learn about other religions/cultures over politicians that don't. Colin Powell and George W. Bush earned points for the second criterium.

politics
2,850 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I'd buy your list with the following exceptions: Al Gore ever - just for claiming to invent the internet. And Hillary, because her husbands deeds don't count as her own and the 1993 health care bungle (but I'd sure feel better about her as the Democratic choice than the current pick).

If Palin doesn't make your list due to inexperience, why is Obama on it?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

If Palin doesn't make your list due to inexperience, why is Obama on it?
End of quote

See Reason 3.

If the election were all about foreign policy, Obama would be just a footnote in a landslide. Against.  But it is about the economy (that is what cost Bush I the re-election).  The irony (for the colonials as I find the ignorance of most non-Americans even here on JU to be astounding when it comes to America) is that the president has the lions share of responsibility in foreign policy, and very little in domestic (congress has that agenda - and they have to agree with him - he cannot even propose officially).  If America was smart, it would elect presidents based upon that criteria, and congress based on domestic. 

But as I did say foreigners were ignorant, Americans (as a whole) are just stupid.

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

the president has the lions share of responsibility in foreign policy, and very little in domestic (congress has that agenda
End of quote
In other words, Geo Washington should have in his fairwell address handed over the sword to the General of the Continental Army.:cylon:

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

See Reason 3.

End of quote

Precisely.

There is a difference between unimportant and useless politicians and NO SUPPORT.

Being between the list means that I might support that particular politician depending on the issue.

 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

In other words, Geo Washington should have in his fairwell address handed over the sword to the General of the Continental Army.
End of quote

He was not president, but the C-in-C.  which last I checked, they fight fureners.  And while the president is the Executive, congress is the Board of directors.  They make the rules.