In the discussion thread: To Those that say tyranny,tyranny- I say BULL. You are free/open writing here on a worldwide board [View all]
Response to tama (Reply #54)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:51 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
56. But our system is like that. The UK system is different, but we fought not to be them.
I disagree, same as my feelings for LBJ
LBJ didn't have to do what he did with the social issues, the voting rights acts, the civil rights acts, he wanted to (and yes, it could be said he was more liberal than President Obama, and he was more liberal than JFK and RFK were).
as for the war, IMHO anyone would have done what LBJ did,there was no choice,
and that is unlike the good stuff he did, where there was a choice and he did it(and needed help from the other side to achieve it, to get around the Wallace racists in his own party).
i don't consider Bush and President Obama the same
any more that I consider Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin the same
and while there were Vietnam disagreements with LBJ, to have HHH run with all the baggage, and without the good politics, arm twisting style LBJ had, was political suicide on the democratic side that year.
LBJ would have beaten Nixon, it woudl have been dirty, ugly, bloody, but LBJ was stronger than Nixon and would have prevailed in spite of Vietnam(where later we found how Nixon sabatoged the peace negotiations anyhow).
Tossing lBJ out in 1968, directly led to Nixon (and indirectly led to RFK's death, in that he would not have won had LBJ stayed.)
the world would have been better off.
We are in a personality system. There are only 44 presidents in history.
All of them known somewhat to those who know politics.We know their names or at least know if someone mentions their name they were president.(or should know).
I find I can no longer name all the presidents from the start, but from FDR on, I can list all of them.
That is our system.
In England, there is a different system, and blocs are in play (same as in Israel and Canada).
Same as in some states here.
But we don't elect a president that way, and with the electoral vote 270, we need to have only 2, otherwise, as would be the case now, the house would elect the president each time 270 is not reached, and not the senate or the people. Just the house.
So a 3rd party were there to be one that could win electoral votes, would mess up the 270 system awful.
and the best way to change that IMHO would be for runoff election same day for the top two candidates so that 50% or more is assured.
No other way is fair.
(now that would have meant probably that Gore would have won in 2000 but that Clinton would not have won in 1992, meaning Gore probably never would have been the candidate in 2000 anyhow. imho.
I disagree with you on the % change.
Taking everything into account over the 4 years, we have alot of 10% in different issues gain,
so I would say it is 25-40% better than it was.
And think the next 4 years will if we win the house and the court back, double that over 8 years or more if we do a continuation in 2016-2025.
(and no, it doesn't have to be Hillary per se, but she is the one who can beat the ones they will throw at us, so in that sense it does.)
you do have to win it. imho
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
But our system is like that. The UK system is different, but we fought not to be them.
|Nye Bevan||Jan 2013||#38|
|Chico Man||Jan 2013||#29|
Please login to view edit histories.