Post-Election Analysis

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm gonna have to hope JD helps me out here again, but a president's primary responsibility, IIRC, is foreign policy and head of the armed forces. We've had peace so much of the time here in the US, and I think this aspect has been forgotten. Congress is more for domestic policies, I think (as brownie said, "in the end, the president has a lot less control over the economy than most like to think... the fed and the congress have a lot more power in this area"). That's why it was an impossibility for the previous Pres. Bush to keep his "no new taxes" pledge - he can do everything possible on HIS side, but Congress can overrule him in this area. Anyway, the different branches of govt focus on different areas, tho they all tend to have some say in all areas. They overlap - but their focus is different. So it is entirely reasonable to make foreign policy/war a major reason to vote for a candidate.

That it was his primary responsibility, that I didn't know. But I trust your foreign policy is more than simply the war.

I hadn't forgotten about your Congress, and I know your president is not all powerful. However Bush will, on ground of his election items/stances, put some things before Congress, isn't it? And Congress can overrule it or not. But Congress has, I believe, right now a majority of republicans? Considering they are of the same party and probably uphold the same party values, won't they easier agree with Bush's proposals? Thus those items would also be a factor in the vote, granted like you said, not the major reason.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - as you said - the president has very little to do with the economy - either positively or negatively. Some actions can influence it - but can not change it overnight.

I never said the president controls the economy. But there are certainly economical measures he can propose that can influence the economy.

Earniel -
As far as I'm concerned - what goes on internally in the US is up to Americans - not up to outsiders. That is why I think it is no concern to you whether we aloow or don't allow abortions, or stem cell resrearch, or the death penalty (which I support). It doesn't concern anyone outside this country.

As you wish. However that won't stop me taking an interest in, and be concerned by matters that happen inside your borders. How can I otherwise discuss it when I know nothing about it?

I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to add up, you think American domestic issues don't concern outsiders but at the same time you complain that outsiders don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Having an opinion is one thing. But the decision is up to Americans - and people must understand that it is 100% our decision. We are not Europe and we have different values and ideas.

Hey, I never said otherwise.

They can vote for Chirac if they want - and they can support that ban - that doesn't affect my life here in the US. That is where the difference is in what she was saying - and what I am saying. She wasn't talking about disagreeing with certain issues, she was saying who would have been a better president based on domestic concerns.

What I was saying is that I have an opinion about who I think would have been a better president based on domestic concerns. Is a difference.

How can she not be making her decision from the viewpoint of her country? She doesn't know fully the issues of America - she sees these issues in the lens of her media (even though she says she doesn't - it's impossible not to) - not US media (which is generally liberal here anyway). But someone living outside the US does NOT have a complete understanding of American domestic issues. They only have half the picture - if that.

Look JD, I'd really appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth I never said. I never said I am fully knowledgable of the American issues. I certainly never said I wasn't influenced by my media. I look at things from my culture and situation as you do. The media influences me, like yours does with you. You won't hear me denying that.

However, what I meant was that I sometimes look at foreign issues without the benefit of my country as center and starting point, thus not from the viewpoint of my country. I'm sorry, I don't know how to put it any clearer than that.