What Election Day means to us?

nguyen ha phuong đã viết:
Seriously , i think Hillary Clinton would be a good candidate for President of the United States and could easily be elected . I admire her , too :)

Hmmm , Hillary may have to battle Kerry for their party's nomination in 2008 .A victory by President Bush could establish her as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. She must have been in high gear for that :) Hm , but still there are some obstacles , the Monica Lewinsky , the White Water scandal, and her failure in the Health Care Reform ( I read 'bout it in "Living history " , dun't know if that's considered her failure ) may all influence her running . THat's not bad records , but in hot running days , dirty tricks , personal attacks , all are not excluded .

Now, the Democrats now have no other candicate more potential for the nomination than HIllary and Kerry . The Republicans now have nobody but Bush. As someone has said to me , there could be a repeat of the Clinton-Bush election of 1992, only with the first names changed . True , its funny , Bush - Clinton - BUsh - Clinton , but it must stop there , for both Bush and the Clinton have only girls who are to said not to be very interested in politics ( Or are they ? )

And why BUsh win , to me , the only reason is that there must be something wrong with the mindset of the American voters . REpublicans , any, are far more worse off than Kerry . Maybe that is just my view , an outsider's view . But it's unlikely that any Republican will be elected next term . THey can not find any worse candidate than GWBush to field in 4 years to come . 8-} What a nonsense ! A president who lost the debates ( the stupid way in which he barked still makes me vomit ) and has highest rate job loss in history ( the deficit just keeps increasing steeply ) got re-elected . 8-} Life sometime really sucks !

:)) And Bill Clinton , its high time he rested . Bypass heart surgery , still he looks so charming . His hands till now have been twisted by hundreds of handshakings , signings . Its now his wife's era ! Go ahead , HIllary :D
Nhấn để mở rộng...
I agree that Hillary is a good candidate but I don't think she could be elected. :) Among Democrats there're also John Edwards (though he's just a lawyer now) and Obama. And in Republican, John McCain has a huge influence.
Actually, I believe he will be the next president ( if Bush won't be assassinated ;) )
 
The majority of people watching the debates might or might not have understood about economic issues, but they certainly didn't care enough about them.The average Americans were glued to the TV screen scanning for phrases that would incense them, like "gay-marriages", "terrorism", and "abortion".
Nhấn để mở rộng...

i'm sure "gay marriages", "terrorism", "abortion" or smt like what the candidates think abt the wife, etc are eyecatching issues. But it doesn't mean that ppl don't pay attention to the ecn issues at all. I know that a lot of young adults care if they would receive SS benefit in the future. Almost everyone care if their tax would increase (these things are obviously ecn issue)

If you look at the U.S, U.S economy go to depression about every 20 years. Once in 1940, once in 1970, once in mid 1980, and this time start from 2000.
Nhấn để mở rộng...

This is true and obviously Bush is doing smt to help the ecn. Evryone knows that the cause of the depression is the skyhigh oil price. One of the presidents has to do smt abt it (i mean fight for the oil). Because Clinton didn't, Bush had to
 
Hoang Chi Mai đã viết:
Đặng Trần Hiếu đã viết:
They still vote for Bush despite the economic issues is because they know much much much more about economic than you do.
Nhấn để mở rộng...

I'm sorry, but this statement is a little confusing. Why would people who truly understood the economic situation vote for Bush, whom we've all tacitly labelled the "screw-economy" president? The fact that the US economy began to recover at the end of Bush's presidency wasn't anything he could take credit for, and it didn't even become that much of a priority in his campaign.

The majority of people watching the debates might or might not have understood about economic issues, but they certainly didn't care enough about them. The average Americans were glued to the TV screen scanning for phrases that would incense them, like "gay-marriages", "terrorism", and "abortion".
Nhấn để mở rộng...
Sorry but I must say people who said Bush is a screw-economy president obviously doesn't know anything about economics. Read my post again & you will understand.
Nhấn để mở rộng...
 
Hieu, I don't know how much you know about economics, but I have read your post and this is my understanding of it. You argue that every capitalist economies has cycles, during which they can sink into recessions or they can experience great growth. This is certainly true, no one can argue with that. You also say that an economy without a deficit ever is not a good economy... this is, perhaps, true indeed. but since I don't know of any economy in the history that never experiences a deficit, of course it is questionable :)
But you also say that Bush is not to blame. This is wrong. the American economy is no lassez-faire economy. Surely you know of fiscal policies and their effects! As the leader of the institution that issues fiscal policies, it is unthinkable that Bush is not responsible for the health of the economy.
You say that ppl who blame Bush don't know anything about economics. Well then, since you ask people to read your post, I ask that you read these:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/print/1/displaymode/1098/
http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/
I am hopeful that you won't claim a greater knowledge of economics than those who signed these letters.
Bush got blamed by many economists, some of them very prominent. Yet he got endorsed also by some, among whom was Milton Friedman, who of course needs no introduction.
My point here is that: economics is such as new science, macroeconomics even more so, that economists are still divided on pretty much all issues. It is therefore reasonable, imho, to say that most ppl who watch the debates, even the candidates, don't have enough knowledge of the issues.
Whoever wrote this "The average Americans were glued to the TV screen scanning for phrases that would incense them, like "gay-marriages", "terrorism", and "abortion" has my endorsement.
 
the American economy is no lassez-faire economy. Surely you know of fiscal policies and their effects! As the leader of the institution that issues fiscal policies, it is unthinkable that Bush is not responsible for the health of the economy
Nhấn để mở rộng...
Bush is doing smt for the ecn, that's why US ecn is not in a deep depression
 
well, exactly my point. One can blame Bush or one can praise him, but it's wrong to say that he is not responsible for the economy's performance.
 
To Hiếu: a piece of advice (esp. in HAO), don't ever assume you know more about econ than anyone else.

Bush's initial plan for the economy in 2000 was not bad. However, 9/11 happened. Then he decided to go into war, which changed the whole situation.
 
hold on to that point

why 9/11 happened? terrorism? why there are terrorism? good point: evrything relates to oil and oil relates to evrything

did bush know that 9/11 was gonna happen? of course he didn't because if he did, they'd have had more preparation

did bush know that they was gonna go to war? i guess most likely he did because there's no other solution to it. Opec kept raising the oil price, China burnt huge amount of oil. Diplomacy solutions was brought abt but it could only help defer the war. Iraq war has to happen, the only questions are when and how. 9/11 was a good excuse to go into war. And look at the fact, did the US go into war because of the 9/11 or because of the oil? maybe both but iam pretty sure oil was the main reason

the iraq war is actually good for us ecn. Can u imagine what would happen to US ecn w/out oil? one of the presidents has to do smt abt the oil price. Clinton obviously didn't want to be responsible for it so he tried to defer the war until bush term. And poor Bush, he got all the blame for the war and the crappy ecn.

This situation is the same with the SS fund. One of the presidents has to raise tax or cut seniors' benefit. All of them didn't like to do it because it would hurt their reputation. The one who does it would be a brave one
 
Hieu, I didn't intend to say this, but I have to because it bothers me.
You are not a know everything person so don't act like one. I know that it is pointless to say this because there wouldn't be any difference, u'd do what u like anyway, but it BOTHERS me
And don't wonder why i don't talk to u. i figured out that i don't have to talk to anyway that don't listen to me
 
Hoàng Long đã viết:
Hieu, I don't know how much you know about economics, but I have read your post and this is my understanding of it. You argue that every capitalist economies has cycles, during which they can sink into recessions or they can experience great growth. This is certainly true, no one can argue with that. You also say that an economy without a deficit ever is not a good economy... this is, perhaps, true indeed. but since I don't know of any economy in the history that never experiences a deficit, of course it is questionable :)
But you also say that Bush is not to blame. This is wrong. the American economy is no lassez-faire economy. Surely you know of fiscal policies and their effects! As the leader of the institution that issues fiscal policies, it is unthinkable that Bush is not responsible for the health of the economy.
You say that ppl who blame Bush don't know anything about economics. Well then, since you ask people to read your post, I ask that you read these:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/print/1/displaymode/1098/
http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/
I am hopeful that you won't claim a greater knowledge of economics than those who signed these letters.
Bush got blamed by many economists, some of them very prominent. Yet he got endorsed also by some, among whom was Milton Friedman, who of course needs no introduction.
My point here is that: economics is such as new science, macroeconomics even more so, that economists are still divided on pretty much all issues. It is therefore reasonable, imho, to say that most ppl who watch the debates, even the candidates, don't have enough knowledge of the issues.
Whoever wrote this "The average Americans were glued to the TV screen scanning for phrases that would incense them, like "gay-marriages", "terrorism", and "abortion" has my endorsement.
Nhấn để mở rộng...
I read the websites that you posted. It is indeed signed by some of the top professors but the problem is where is the argument in Kerry's letter?? All it say is that Bush economic policies are not good, see the statistics and you will see. But in a country currently in recession how can you expect to see an optimistic statistics??

All of my arguments are based on what I have learned in school. Even "an economy which never experience a deficit is not a good economy", it is because an economy which experiences surplus for a long time is not good. Therefore I don't think it is questionable. If it is so then probably we shouldn't go to school.
 
Nguyen My Hanh đã viết:
Hieu, I didn't intend to say this, but I have to because it bothers me.
You are not a know everything person so don't act like one. I know that it is pointless to say this because there wouldn't be any difference, u'd do what u like anyway, but it BOTHERS me
And don't wonder why i don't talk to u. i figured out that i don't have to talk to anyway that don't listen to me
Nhấn để mở rộng...
It's true. That's why I have to keep referring to books and Internet source to argue.

I know why you don't talk to me. Because I didn't reply your e-mail, right?? Sorry but I lost all of your mails :)) :)). And I think I told you before, I use FreeBSD and there is no Photoshop for FreeBSD so I can not answer your questions, I don't want to waste time reinstall Windows and then Photoshop, etc... just to answer a few questions. Moreover, I'm not a designer anymore, my personal website is my last website and it has been designed 2 years ago, you know that, right?? I'm unable to answer your questions not because I don't want to, you know that so don't keep acting so childish.
 
Chỉnh sửa lần cuối:
let's make it clear
u think i actually need u answer my email
no
i just want to see if u keep your words
and i have the answer
that's it
i'm out of here
 
I would if I could. But Windows is like 200 pounds and Photoshop is about 500 pounds here, I don't have that much money anyway. Anyway, it is not something to argue in public, we shouldn't ruin this topic.
 
read the websites that you posted. It is indeed signed by some of the top professors but the problem is where is the argument in Kerry's letter?? All it say is that Bush economic policies are not good, see the statistics and you will see. But in a country currently in recession how can you expect to see an optimistic statistics??
Nhấn để mở rộng...

this is true. US ecn is worse under Bush than Clinton, but it is not so bad considering the fact that it might have been in a depression without Bush ecn policies.
 
the election, in an ironic way of speaking, was the race between a stupid and a liar (exaggration, of course, but definitely not impractical!). As for myself, I'd rather vote for the stupid; after all, "stupidity" is not a sin, but lying is!
 
Đặng Trần Hiếu đã viết:
Nguyen My Hanh đã viết:
It's true. That's why I have to keep referring to books and Internet source to argue.
Nhấn để mở rộng...

Well, I for one have never even heard of you. Nor do I see any book/internet reference in any of your arguments. What I seem to be seeing is that you support your contradicting points by shooting down other people's opinions and act like an economic expert because, heh, you learned it in school. Really, do you always take what you are taught at face value? And while I cannot make the same happy claim, because let's face it, I go to school in VN and all my knowledge of economics is based on what I can gather from my reading, I find that your expertised knowledge isn't much more satisfying. A piece of advice: live up to your own words and support your view with more than just unfounded derision. As for your attitude, I think everyone else has made it pretty clear...

The war in Iraq as far as I know is mostly about oil. But the war that immediately followed 9/11 was not the Iraq war. Hmmmm.... :-?

the election, in an ironic way of speaking, was the race between a stupid and a liar (exaggration, of course, but definitely not impractical!). As for myself, I'd rather vote for the stupid; after all, "stupidity" is not a sin, but lying is!
Nhấn để mở rộng...

Assuming that you are talking about Kerry, Toan, what lies are you referring too?
Nhấn để mở rộng...
 
Chỉnh sửa lần cuối:
Hơ, picking the President is like "picking the lesser of 2 evils" :)) (I think)
I don't like Bush at all but he was already re-elected. What I'm doing now is to find out how his re-election's gonna affect my life. :-/ :)
 
Bạn phải đăng nhập hoặc đăng ký để phản hồi tại đây.
Back
Bên trên