Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it The Pop Ups Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM

Breaking News: Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate Authenticated


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1051-1075 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:37:02 PM PDT
C. Gonzales says:
Well then if you have no problem with the republicans openly stating their goal is to make him a one-term president and doing everything in their power to do so then you should not complain about not having a president as a uniter since the republican party doesn't want the country united.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:40:57 PM PDT
Mr. Gonzales, do the Democrats want to have the Republicans in total control?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:51:31 PM PDT
C. Gonzales says:
The republicans were in total control for most of the Bush presidency. Democrats worked together with republicans on a lot of bills. You're not seeing the same from the republicans now. When Reagan was president the democrats worked together with him. Once again you're not seeing this from the republicans now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 4:18:42 PM PDT
So ergo, Bush is a better president than Obama, who when the Dems were in charge could not get his spending bills passed by his on group. I really believe it is a bunch of huey, they should work together and we in the voting public should force them to by only voting for those that will. So who should I vote for?

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 4:35:50 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
I too see nothing wrong with the Republicans stating that they want the President to only serve one term. That's the American way.

The Democrats wanted George W. Bush to serve one term but they didn't get their wish. The Republicans wanted Bill Clinton to serve one term, but they didn't get their wish either.

Every President except George Washington had a candidate from an opposing political party running against the incumbent president. The opposition party has always wanted the president to only serve one term. Since Washington, we have never had another president who ran without opposition.

The Democratic Party will be stating its goals when it lays out the party's platform at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina during the first week of Septmeber.
However I'm surprised that Richard Edwards seems to not be aware of the fact that Barack Obama has been out on the campaign trail for months now, stating his goals for a possible second term. He makes a speech about his goals in a different city nearly every single day.

The Republican Party will be stating its goals when it lays out the party's platform at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida during the last week of August. Mitt Romney also has been out on the campaign trail, stating his goals for the next four years if the voters should select him as the next president.

Anyone can simply go to the campaign web sites of either candidate and read their goals for January, 2013 through January, 2017 for themselves.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have enough support to elect a President. It will be the independent voters who decide the next president.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 4:38:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 4:56:07 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
President Bush may have been a better president in Richard Edwards' mind but if he was so great, John McCain and Sarah Palin would have been elected to continue the Bush legacy. That didn't happen. After Bush, a majority of American voters (53%) wanted a change.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 4:47:50 PM PDT
Nat says:
National debt over the years:

Dec 1976 (end of Ford's term: $653 Billion

Dec 1980 (end of Carter's term): $930 Billion

Sep 1988 (near end of Reagan's term): $2.602 Trillion

Sep 1992 (near end of Bush I's term): $4.60 Trillion

Sep 2000 (near end of Clinton's term): $5.67 Trillion

Sept 2001 (beginning of Bush II's term): $5.80 Trillion

Jan 2009 (end of Bush II's term): $10.61 Trillion

Sep 2009? (end of Bush II's FY 2009 Budget): $11.9 Trillion

Notice a trend in who added more?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 4:50:11 PM PDT
C. Gonzales says:
The only thing is shows is one party is willing to work with the other when in power while the other party isn't. It doesn't make bush a better president. He also had the country falling behind him because of 9/11. I have a feeling if another event such as that happened the republicans wouldn't put the country first with a democrat in charge.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 5:58:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 6:01:37 PM PDT
"Every President except George Washington had a candidate from an opposing political party running against the incumbent president."

Actually, in 1820 President James Monroe ran effectively unopposed to earn his second term in office. Also, in 1824, all four major candidates belonged to the same party (the Democratic-Republican Party), though that party split into two very shortly thereafter (Jackson becoming a Democratic, and Quincy Adams becoming a National Republican), and, obviously, none of them were incumbents.

Just a bit of random electoral history.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 6:19:31 PM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
In 1820 one New Hampshire Elector DID vote for John Quincy Adams against James Monroe!
Without naming a candidate, the Federalists DID manage to get 16% of the vote against Monroe and Independent candidate De Witt Clinton got another 1.75%.
Rather than NO opposition, Monroe had disorganized opposition and weak opposition.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 8:10:03 PM PDT
Raedwulf says:
Your illogical "bad for them/good for us" theory is contrary to your stated goal of having a President bring us all together.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 8:10:56 PM PDT
Raedwulf says:
Nope. But that has nothing to do with your theory. Unless your "unite us" theory is simply to turn us all into Republican clones?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 8:11:26 PM PDT
Raedwulf says:
So ergo, nothing of the sort.

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 10:14:00 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 1, 2012 9:40:17 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 11:48:52 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 4:55:48 AM PDT
Dalekmaster says:
"'If Obama is such a good president, then WHY is the country so DIVIDED???!' Ahhhh HAH! Gotcha with THAT one, hah??? ;-)"

Oh, that's easy. It's because the GOP cares only about its own power and thinks there's nothing wrong with turning us against each other as long as it gets them votes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 7:58:39 AM PDT
Raedwulf says:
Except the answer would be the same. We started divided, and the Republicans have actively fought every effort the President has made to fix the economy and make things better. They've lied about his record.

That's why the country is so divided.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 8:29:52 AM PDT
I happen to have an official copy of Kitau's birth certificate... from Honolulu! He only claims to be Kenyan.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 9:23:44 AM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
Wow! You got a scoop! ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:38:32 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 7:13:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 10:25:46 AM PDT
J. Potter says:
Not effectively. 2000-2008 already gettin' hazy on you?

In fact, many of them were downright complicit. The Reds were quite good at selling their ideas to the public, essentially doing an end around on the opposition. Pie in the sky is an easy sell.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:23:54 AM PDT
CinephileErb says:
Really you people are ridiculous!

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 9:55:20 AM PDT
why do you feel that way

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 11:24:55 AM PDT
Jimmy E. says:
Yeah, we know! But it's so much fun! ;-)

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 5:14:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 1, 2012 9:42:35 AM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  51
Total posts:  1130
Initial post:  Mar 19, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions