Politics Plus

Here are the results of our War on Syria Poll.  Politics Plus Polls are not scientific, because those who respond are not balanced according to demographic categories.   Therefore, we do not accurately reflect the makeup of the US population.  Nevertheless, our polls are often accurate.

And here are your comments.

Showing comments 1–7 of 7.

Posted by mamabearclaw  September 10, 2013 at 6:27 am.  

 

Although I will stand behind what ever decision President Obama makes. I am not sure any he even knows what he will do. But he is not all talk or is he war hungry. He is President and he feels that all people have rights no matter what color what country or what party they belong to.

 

Posted by Yvonne White  September 1, 2013 at 4:16 pm.  

 

I’m glad he decided to wait on CONgre$$ – might as well spread the blame. But I’m afraid they will okay bombing & droning.

 

Posted by Lynn Squance  September 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm.  

 

I’d like to say that everything is just rhetoric, all talk. But I fear with a GOP dominated Congress, that will not be the case. Personally, I’d like to see a diplomatic solution, but with Russia pulling Al-Assad’s strings, and Iran playing the fiddle, that isn’t likely to happen. And then of course, both Russia and China have vetos on the UN Security Council so a diplomatic solution involving the UN is not likely to happen. All vetos on the Security Council should be relegated to the dust bin because they impede action when action is needed, no matter if that action is more diplomatic or sanctions, or war. I am NOT in favour of war.

 

Mr Obama has sent an action proposal to the Congress with documentation out-lining the information that he has. A vote will be taken by the Congress to "yea or nay" his proposed action. This is an astute move politically because it keeps the GOP dominated Congress in the responsibility loop. How will the Congress vote is another question. Will the GOP blood lust for war show forth or will they appear to obstruct the POTUS? Or will they come back with amendments to his plan?

 

As I understand, there is no declaration of war within Obama’s proposed plan, so any action other than talk, could be taken as an act of aggression and therefore subject the US to international sanction and I am sure that Russia would be only too glad to lead that fight. I really don’t trust Mad Vlad Putin.

 

I think, as far as the Congress is concerned, will obstruction trump profits? The decision that will come from the Congress is likely more about the US and the "what’s in it for me" question, than what the Syrian people need and want.

 

I guess wait and see.

 

 

 

Posted by Rixar13  September 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm.  

 

Bombs and Cruise missiles when Congress oops, just talk.

 

 

Posted by gene jacobson  September 1, 2013 at 8:50 am.  

 

I am voting bombs, but I am hoping not. No troops, no more death dealing. It is far too late after the fact to now be acting like we have the high moral ground here. Now if he were to attack the arms dealers, that I’d support, they, after all are the guilty parties here. The ones who make and sell the weapons – including US, have the most blood on their hands of all.

 

Posted by Patty  September 1, 2013 at 5:02 am.  

 

I am voting with my heart and hopes. Please be true. We don’t need another war.

 

Posted by Edith Belcher  August 31, 2013 at 9:53 pm.  

 

I think he will be like the rest, he won’t stop at using bombs and cruise controlled missiles. We are the most war hungry nation in the world

I did not vote with the majority, this time.  I voted “just talk”, because I figured Obama was too smart a guy to embark on a policy guaranteed to fail.  I said nothing, at the time, because nobody else had publically surmised that he was bluffing, and did not want to tip his hand.

Lynn has now won her sixth Big Mouth Award.  For over a year she has been our top commentator, and is also one of only two people, other than myself, that I have authorized to post articles here.  Lynn is a denizen of Care2, and is still a Canadian, unfortunately for the US.  I’ve said this before, but it still bears repeating.  If 10% of US citizens had half the knowledge of and insight into US politics that this Canadian gal regularly displays, our country would be far better off.  Congrats Lynn!  She is a treasure, whose contribution to this site cannot be overstated.  Please join me in giving her even more of the kudos she so richly deserves.

Here are the results of our House Immigration Zimmerman Verdict Poll.  Politics Polls are not scientific, because those who respond are not balances according to demographic categories, and therefore, we do not demographically reflect the US population.  Nevertheless, our polls are often accurate.

And here are your comments:

Posted by Phil P  July 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm.  

 

The defense put Trayvon on trial from the beginning and the prosecution never countered or presented Trayvon as a typical 17 yr old black kid nor alternative scenarios of the shooting that the jury could consider as Manslaughter.

 

Posted by Patty  July 20, 2013 at 5:36 am.  

 

It was a bit of everything. I knew it wouldn’t happen but I wished with all my heart that Zimmerman would have taken the stand. The jurors would have seen his hatred on display then.

 

Posted by Barbara K in reply to Patty  July 21, 2013 at 2:08 pm.  

 

Am I the only one who noticed how they wouldn’t let Zimmerman speak so the the jury could not hear his higher pitched voice?

 

Posted by Patty in reply to Barbara K  July 22, 2013 at 4:10 am.  

 

Barbara K, I had heard that mentioned on some news show at one time during speculation of the trial. I think it was before they even picked the jurors. One of their "expert lawyers" said something to the effect that they shouldn’t let him testify because of his high pitched voice. I thought that was the last of their worries.

Posted by Rixar13  July 19, 2013 at 3:49 pm.  

 

AG Eric Holder said it best. The stand your ground law was for a problem that did not exist…

 

 

Posted by John Dasef  July 17, 2013 at 10:12 am.  

 

Instructions to the jury were heavily slanted in Zimmerman’s favor.

 

Posted by Fred Lemon  July 17, 2013 at 6:05 am.  

 

I also think it was a bit of all the things mentioned except nothing. I just ask what made it Zimmerman’s ground to stand on rather than Martin’s?

 

 

Posted by Angelica in reply to Fred Lemon  

 

That was my question, too. Why did the prosecution ignore that? They should have raised hell and they didn’t.

 

Posted by Archie  July 16, 2013 at 9:09 pm.  

 

So when Mr Zimmerman moseys on down the street with shopping bag,is followed in the dark by someone who hollers"Hey you stop there!" You are of middle Eastern appearance, you are a terrorist! I,ll have to shoot you! Would the good folks of this jury say right ON!?

 

 

Posted by dave c  July 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm.  

 

a little bit of each?!

 

Posted by SoINeedAName in reply to dave c  July 16, 2013 at 3:04 pm.  

 

Most definitely, a little bit of each.

 

Posted by Angelica  July 16, 2013 at 6:33 am.  

 

I heard juror @37B on TV last night. The woman has an IQ about 4 points higher than a head of iceberg lettuce. She "liked what was in Zimmerman’s heart." I almost fell out of my chair. It was clear that she never saw the victim as human. I say she’s beyond ignorant because she thought the most compelling testimony OF THE WHOLE TRIAL was the doctor who talked about death screams in Nam.

 

 

Posted by Vanessa Dawne in reply to Angelica  July 19, 2013 at 11:10 pm.  

 

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Angelica! 37B was 1 of 6 making the decision & she was also part of the group who changed the minds of 2 or more of the 6 who were leaning towards ‘guilty’ — an ignorant bully. Is that really representative of a jury of Trayvon’s peers?

Was there any intelligence in that room?

 

 

Posted by Angelica in reply to Vanessa Dawne  July 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm.  From 70.127.233.x   

 

After listening to her make outrageous claims that she "knew what was in Z’s heart," I can only conclude that she was part of the same dumber than dirt group that supports "Stand Your Ground" and all the racial inequality that goes with it.

 

Posted by Lynn Squance  July 16, 2013 at 1:11 am.  

 

I think it was no one thing. A jury made up of 5 white women and one Hispanic woman in my view is not racially balanced. For that matter, where is the token male? As I understand, the judged ruled that there could be no mention of race, yet in some of Zimmerman’s comments prior to the trial, racial profiling was done.

I hope the DOJ carries forth with an investigation and hate crime charges.

 

Posted by Angelica in reply to Lynn Squance  July 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm.  

 

Clearly, there was racial profiling. Those 40-something phone calls of his to the police prove it.

I voted for all of the top four choices.  There was clearly bigotry on the jury.  37B proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecution was weak.  They missed many opportunities to demonstrate premeditated malice.  The defense was skillful.  All those Republican donations bought great lawyers.  The only choice I made, about which I have doubts is that the judge was biased.  I thought that he should have instructed the jury that Martin had more right to stand his ground than Zimmerman, as he was the one being pursued.  I figured the judge thought that stand your ground only applies to the white in a mixed race confrontation.  On the other hand, since the Republicans are the Party of Death, it may be that stand your ground only applies to the armed survivor.  I should have included another choice for Florida Law.