Please, let's stop calling the president of the U.S. "the leader of the free world". First, the president of the U.S. is historically elected by a minority of eligible voters in one country. Second, the "free world" includes plenty of dictatorships.
Comment posted to "4-year-Olds Don't Act Like Trump", Alison Gopnik, New York Times, 2017-05-20
Showing posts with label leader of the free world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leader of the free world. Show all posts
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Quotes of the day: Trump and voting
Quote of the day about Trump
"They are also saying there’s an unidentified lying object in the White House."
"The Offender of the Free World", Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-01-28, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/opinion/the-offender-of-the-free-world.html
Quote of the day about voting
We must turn out and vote like our lives dependent on it! If we don't vote we turn elections over to the regressive minority!
Ibid: comment by Reader MegaDucks
My comment:
Hear! Hear!
The only way
We throw are votes away
Is to stay away!
"They are also saying there’s an unidentified lying object in the White House."
"The Offender of the Free World", Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-01-28, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/opinion/the-offender-of-the-free-world.html
Quote of the day about voting
We must turn out and vote like our lives dependent on it! If we don't vote we turn elections over to the regressive minority!
Ibid: comment by Reader MegaDucks
My comment:
Hear! Hear!
The only way
We throw are votes away
Is to stay away!
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Jumping to conclusions can…
Lead one to fall flat on one’s face.
See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-fed-bashing-is-ridiculous-181419495.html
The problem is the usual one of ascribing more power to a person or an organization than if available i reality or law.
The generalization that frosts me the most is calling the President of the United States the “Leader of the free world”. One, who elected him or her to such a position. Certainly not people in England, France, Germany,…
The world is a complex place. The President of the United States cannot even get his or her allies to agree to each and every U.S. position. if POTUS cannot get allies to jump through hoops, how can anybody assume that POTUS can get adversaries to agree even to a small portion of a U.S. position?
I keep thinking the best course for all the governments that want peace and prosperity for all should be working through the U.N. a lot more.
See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-fed-bashing-is-ridiculous-181419495.html
The problem is the usual one of ascribing more power to a person or an organization than if available i reality or law.
The generalization that frosts me the most is calling the President of the United States the “Leader of the free world”. One, who elected him or her to such a position. Certainly not people in England, France, Germany,…
The world is a complex place. The President of the United States cannot even get his or her allies to agree to each and every U.S. position. if POTUS cannot get allies to jump through hoops, how can anybody assume that POTUS can get adversaries to agree even to a small portion of a U.S. position?
I keep thinking the best course for all the governments that want peace and prosperity for all should be working through the U.N. a lot more.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Who elected "The Leader of the Free World"?
Americans claim to believe in freedom and democracy.
Many Americans claim that the President of the United States is the Leader of the Free World.
When was an election held for the Leader of the Free World? I certainly didn't see any results in the newspapers.
Many Americans claim that the President of the United States is the Leader of the Free World.
When was an election held for the Leader of the Free World? I certainly didn't see any results in the newspapers.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Debates? What debates?
According to the newspapers, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their third and final debate last night, supposedly on foreign policy. As with the previous two, I didn't bother watching. What for? See What do the debates prove?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)