Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

LOl, on your being fed up with electioneering and the press .. hahaha, oops, excuse that .. about every Aussi would totally be with you! .. lol .. too much of, for too long!! .. this wasn't easy to find, but i did .. bit of ..

"The problem, of course, is that the United States has the unappealing combination of a relatively short presidential term and an unusually long election process. We elect the president every four years (unlike France, where the term used to be seven and is now five), and we now devote a year to the primary process. It’s actually more like two years, if you count the exploratory phase of campaigning and fundraising. So in a sense the U.S. spends at least a quarter of each presidential term actively discussing and debating who the next president will be. (It’s even worse for members of the House of Representatives, who have to start running for re-election even before they’ve unpacked their offices).

Other countries are not nearly so foolish. Parliamentary systems like Great Britain specify that general elections have to be held on regular intervals (i.e., every five years or so) though snap elections aren’t unusual. But I can’t think of any country that spends a year or more actually running the campaign. In Canada, for example, the Elections Act mandates that the minimum length of a campaign be 36 days, and the longest campaign ever recorded (in 1926), was only seventy-four days. In Australia, elections generally last about two months. Apart from the United States, the longest election period I could find in a brief search was Germany, at about 114 days for unscheduled elections. Needless to say, this period is still far shorter than the U.S. norm."

..so, sorta 2 years v 2 months, is the crux of it .. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/22/how-our-election-cycle-screws-up-our-foreign-policy/

Yep, i know you aren't a fan of Rand Paul's which makes it even better that you have some empathy with his side a bit, too, as you did there .. that said re the 'gotcha' or not interview, i guess whether it is that in any case, or just fair, for any of us ordinary viewers comes down to subjective opinion, sometimes ..

personally i didn't see those as gotcha, but just more saying (before he interrupted her) that he had said one thing before and changed his position on a number of issues .. and lolol his suggestion, 'just ask me if i have changed my position, or not' .. lol .. why would anyone just ask that question of any politician without introducing with a bit of fact first ..

On Israeli aid.

Rand sure did propose no aid for all, which has to mean, too, no aid for Israel .. he didn't want to admit he was a pants on fire on that ..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/07/rand-paul/did-rand-paul-propose-cutting-aid-israel/

On Iran a threat.

He clearly said back in 2007, no .. and in the interview .. fair enough he did change his denial stance on that when he said "2007 was a long time ago".

On the Civil Rights Act 1964 (hope it is)

We just saw his speech about how taking stands on legislation is difficult sometimes because one might agree with most of it, but not one bit .. which
is fair enough, too .. we've just seen (i think, didn't watch it again) him say that he supported it all except for the one dealing with private businesses ..

while .. lolol .. there Rachel has a little clip with him clearly saying to NBC's Kasie Hunt that he didn't have any trouble
with any part of it .. and ??? really the private business part of the Act surely wasn't seen ever as just a little part of it ..

I totally agree with this.

"really his foreign policy 'feelings' are somewhat better than the rest of the 'strange ones ' .... see you [my] tomorrow." 100%

Enjoy.