Korean Job Discussion Forums

[gang ah jee]

[mack4289]

Protests are overrated. People should be more worried about voting than protesting. You know all those protestors you see in movies and documentaries about the '60s in America? What that doesn't show you is that voter turnout actually went down from 1964-1968-1972 in the USA. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Even in 1972, when the choice was between a guy who had no immediate plans to end the war (Nixon) and a guy who wanted an immediate withdrawal (McGovern), only 50% of 18-24 year olds in the US voted (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2000/american_vote.html).

Forget protests. Get off your lazy as* and vote (I'll admit I've missed out twice- once because of laziness and once because I didn't get the absentee ballot registered in time).

[mack4289]

About the DOJ scandal, can anyone tell me what law the administration might've broke? I'm not defending what they did, I just haven't heard anyone say that what they did was anything besides seriously unethical (which I agree with, but if it wasn't illegal, what can Congress really do?).

[Hater Depot]

No one has alleged any law was broken, though now one woman being subpoenad says she will take the Fifth.

[caniff]

Wasn't the OP asking what the Yanks thought of the situation? As in, people who are actually from the United States of America?

My take is that it will just reinforce how bad this administration sucks. Nonetheless, Americans are forward-looking people, so there will probably be no major repercussions for the current administration.

Bush and Co. are already politically dead in the water. The American populace is looking towards the next administration. This cycle seems to be a defining aspect of the American political landscape. This system leads to short-sightedness (unfortunately), but also allows for an ability to correct shit that has gone horribly wrong (fortunately).

My take: Bush and his crew will get out relatively unscathed. That sucks (in my opinion), but that's what I will predict at this point.

[wannago]

[jodemas2]

[wannago]

[Ya-ta Boy]

This is pretty typical of second terms. Nearly all of them, starting with Washington, are preoccupied with defending actions taken in the first term.

It appears to me that the new Democratic majority is using a shady action from the past to frustrate the administration's current agenda. It's something like 'death by a thousand cuts'. No one cut is fatal; the purpose is to distract the administration and dissipate its energy, thereby weakening it, so they can't accomplish whatever they would like. It's very much like the Clinton sex scandal in that way.

In addition to stymieing the current agenda, it helps establish the mind-set of GOP = scandal, which will contribute to voters' choices come '08.

On an earlier page, a poster said if one of Clinton's nominees had been accepted by Congress, the Justice Department would have been run much worse than the current one. That's often a successful diversion for a time, but sooner or later, the public seems to stop falling for it and says, "I don't want to hear any imaginary 'what if's' that didn't happen in the last administration. I only care about what did happen in the real world in this administration on your watch and hold you responsible for it."

I highly doubt there will be demonstrations in the streets over the firing of these prosecutors. Most people feel this administration is winding down and will be out of power 'soon'. This is one of the results of regularly scheduled elections. You don't need to toss Molotov *ocktails in the streets when you believe the bums are going to be thrown out in a matter of months.

[Octavius Hite]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17844046/