It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Sour Grapes

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
From the perspective I have of the USA from my armchair in Australia, it seems that there must be some major problem with the voting system and the rules to do with who can run and who cannot.

First the George W. Bush debacle where in a tight election those who wanted the other side to win just bitched and whined that "I didn't vote for him" or calling him an "illegal president".

First off I believe them. They didn't vote for him. But a lot of people did. And if it was so overwhelming a sentiment, then why did it all come down to one state to decide. And the way these "liberal" thinking people talked about the Florida issue, from memory, was just plain racist. Saying things like "In the poor black neighbourhoods, they couldn't see a straight line and couldn't tell who they were voting for."
Complete crap in mine. How come the "rich white neighbourhoods" did the same, only to turn around and hate.

Then we get to his next election which he wins easily and the same people just harp on with the same smelly rhetoric about his first election.

Now with Obama we hear over here US citizens jumping up and down about "he's not born in America", "he's a moslem" and the like. I think that many saying these things would say the same if Hillary won or McCain won, and especially if someone like Mitt Romney won.

The main thought I am trying to get across here is this: I have not really ever agreed with any of the leaders we get here either. But to come up with these type of claims seems like a bad case of sour grapes, instead of just maturely deciding that the knob that got the job just managed to out bull# everyone else.

I know I can sometimes miss the point, but it really does to me seem as if there are a lot of people that need to grow up and just stay away from the fruit section if they can't handle a sour grape.

Cheers
Pablos




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Its interesting to read the observations of a fellow overseas watcher of American politics . IMO things have progressed far from disagreeing with the way Bush got elected in 2000 . Today in the US who ever disagrees with who is in power along the narrow political spectrum displays the kind of disconnect with the government that was present in the Weimar Republic . Such attitudes contribute to the dangerous political environment that now exists in the US .



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pablos
 


pablos, in response to your post, the problem has stemmed for over 200 years now. only 538 individuals- electorial college vote- get to vote for the presidency! so if anyone in the states thinks that they actually vote for their president they are sadly misinformed!

it is and always has been about money- power, that is why many peoeple on this sight which includes myself, will tell you that they did not vote for bush!

sure there will be a few that will cry foul about the populace vote, but to get to the true facts one must rummage through many newspaper to come to the same conclusion that i have!

last but not least. in any given college they will tell students that there is 3 branches of goverment the legislative, judiscial and executive, truthfully who does all manipulating? executive right? who is the executive branch? owe thats right the 538 votes that elected the president, funny thing there huh?


[edit on 5-5-2010 by allprowolfy]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
whoever s the President there not in charge there just puppets on a string votes mean nothing cause all the people they vote for work for the same person.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
With respect Pablos that's not quite the way it happened. In the first election it came down to the State of Florida where W Bush's brother was Governor and the Secretary of State that oversees elections was a Bush lackey. When the election came into question the Gore campaign sued to have the votes recounted. They met every opposition, kinda like you see the Republicans do to Obama on everything he tries to accomplish. It went round and round and in the end the Supreme Court of the US stepped in and said that the votes would not be recounted and "appointed" Bush the Presidency.

In the next election it was almost the same except it was the State of Ohio this time and John Kerry just rolled over and gave up. I live in Ohio and saw some of the irregularities. Not all were necessarily illegal but certainly inappropriate. The Secretary of State here at the time was Ken Blackwell who also ran the Bush campaign here in Ohio. In northern Ohio where the populace was mostly blacks that vote Democratic, there was a strange shortage of voting machines, forcing people to wait for hours and hours sometimes in the rain to get to vote. In the republican areas there were no shortage of machines. In Gahanna Ohio it became known that more 3000 more votes for Bush were recorded than there were registered voters.

Now you would think that someone would step up and say, "Now just hold on a minute" but since Blackwell a Bush supporter and Sec of State was in charge there was nothing done and Bush was again elected and we all know what a great choice that was.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 





pablos, in response to your post, the problem has stemmed for over 200 years now. only 538 individuals- electorial college vote- get to vote for the presidency! so if anyone in the states thinks that they actually vote for their president they are sadly misinformed!


This is so dopey. The Electoral college is what makes sure each individual state is represented equally. Without it we would be ruled by whatever stupid ideas come out New York and California.

The Electoral College is not going anywhere.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by allprowolfy
 





pablos, in response to your post, the problem has stemmed for over 200 years now. only 538 individuals- electorial college vote- get to vote for the presidency! so if anyone in the states thinks that they actually vote for their president they are sadly misinformed!


This is so dopey. The Electoral college is what makes sure each individual state is represented equally. Without it we would be ruled by whatever stupid ideas come out New York and California.

The Electoral College is not going anywhere.


Not sure if i get the jist of your response? this is so dopey? without it we would be ruled by whatever stupid ideas come out of new york?

are you ingnorant to the fact that without the electorial college vote we the citizens of the united states for the first time since federalism would be able to have a legitimate vote for our president???

or are you saying the average united states citizen is a dope and without the electorial college vote we could not vote in a legit president??


please do alaborate as your current response, leaves me with a sick taste in my mouth



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pablos
 


I'm not sure that it is sour grapes but rather an intense distrust in the system. Election corruption has gone on every place in the world there is an election and that we have it here is not surprising. What is interesting is that when it happens the other side stands in outrage, but during the same election they were doing it as well, yet either not as successfully or in the wrong places to really swing the election.

It is pretty well established that Richard Nixon beat JFK in the election, driven from Chicago irregularities which swung IL. to Kennedy. Hardly ever hear about that though. Nixon did what a man would do, which is exactly what Gore did not do, he let it go for the good of the country and came back in a few years and won.

The issue with Obama has more to do with the fact that he ran on a platform of bi-partisanship and what he has done is turned the major legislative thrust of his administration over to two of the most reviled figures in American politics, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama seems asleep at the switch and has turned the makings of government over to functionarys or those two numnuts in congress. If the American people knew that he would essentially turn things over to the hated congress and take a back seat, he would not have won 5 states.

Its been a classic bait and switch and folks don't like it when its done with a TV or car, they certainly don't like it when its been done by the president.

Most of the things you site are manifestations of frustration. Health care and immigration are two obvious examples. A solid majority of Americans were not in support of the current health care bill, yet it was jammed down our throats. Over 60% of Americans are supportive of the Arizona immigration efforts, yet he demonizes the folks who support it.

He and the folks in his administation are in contempt of the citizens and frustration is just bleeding out.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


Damwel, Thanks for your response. I will go check that out. From over here we just hear your media personalities and people banging on in forums. They tend to focus on Florida.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Yeah cheers. It has always seemed a bit weird how there is the electoral college over there. It does seem to go against the "democratic" nature of the country presented overseas.

There is one aspect of the presidential elections you have that I would prefer in Australia. The way you vote for the president itself. Here we have two levels of government: upper and lower house. When we have a national election (as we do this year) we vote for the lower house and half of the senate (lower) with the other half at the following election. However prime ministership is decide on which party or coalition of parties can make up the minimum 51%. Then the leader in that group is the P.M.. The problem is it defies voting for your own electorate for if you want say the guy from the labor party to be P.M. but the member in your region to be from the liberal party then you are left with a dilly. It does seem to make more sense that you would just vote for who you want to represent your country and who you want to represent your region on a federal level with seperate ballots.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the electoral college, how f'ed up is that. Seems like a stupid game of soldiers right there!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join