General Music Chat

Hey everyone,

I'm currently a student at St. John Fisher College in Rochester NY, and am working on a senior project. I have had more luck with posting this question on band websites (I am in a band) than other sites where I normally get bashed to no end.

All I want you to do is read the paragraph below and rate the fake president therein according to the story. Simple.


Thanks in advance


And by the way for some reason people keep thinking I am somehow not legit. I assure you I don't want your credit info.



July 12, 2015 - Washington


The White House has announced that President Wyatt will indeed sign a much- maligned and controversial agreement to open trade with Krozestahn. The Asian country has claimed that it has been an ally of the United States, although the country has remained largely uninvolved in US affairs for years. The blockage of trade is part of a law passed in 1948. The law banned commerce between the countries during an important time where Krozestahn was suspected of supporting Russia and even Nazi Germany, according to sources.
“This is a great thing because it means that we as a nation can apologize to countries we have wronged and also look to the future,” Wyatt said via satellite. “Everyone knows that this is the right thing to do, and I am frankly surprised that I took until my presidency for someone to get it done.”
The bill was passed by a margin of 401-34 in the House and 96-4 in the Senate. Other world leaders have even publicly slammed the decision. Sen. Fiona Rubins of Pennsylvania is among the many who have feared this decision. “ I am not surprised that this is finally happening. What I don’t get is how it passed by the margin it did. This is absurd and Wyatt knows it.” In a news conference earlier today, President DuBeau of France even stated “ Wyatt has his blinders on. How could he do such a thing?” Several sources have even hinted at possible resignations within Capitol Hill because of this
incident.


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TNP5XHH <<<rate him here

Um...okay...many ppl would be totally offended that the fake pres had the audacity to apologise for his predecesors' decisions (kindas like they were when Obama did it recently), so perhaps that wasn't the smartest political move for him to make. The relevency of the country's support of our enemies in the past may have been real or not, but if their policy has indeed changed, & they are actually supportive of the US, then why not reopen trade, etc with them?

60 years is a long time for many policies within any country to change. Look at our own changes over the last 60 years. I don't really have enough facts about this situation to make an informed response, but it looks sneakingly similar to our relationship with Cuba, which seems to be changing quite a bit, even as I typerate.

I see nothing inherently wrong with reopening trade, & unblockading that country, provided there is an actual regime change, with a friendlier attitude toward the US there, either.

Sorry, but I'm not doing your homework for you or helping you with your class project.

I've seen so many of these in the past 8 years it's ridiculous, I've gotten to where I can spot them a mile away, if you want someone to do your homework for you I'm not it.

1. There is a disconnect between signing the trade treaty and why anyone would be apologizing for past actions. The two are not connected in your scenario. You say he's going to sign it and then he makes some statement about apologizing to other nations for past actions. What past action are we apologizing to Krorzestan for? Certainly not for being an ally of the Germans in WWII, which seems to be why the trade treaty with this country is needed.

2. The scenario states that both houses of congress have passed the treaty. I note that a president usually signs a treaty first, after which it is sent to the Senate, not the house, for ratification, so the scenario is wrong on the constitutional facts. If the Senate had passed it, it would have been game over, right there and the president would be making another kind of announcement, thanking the Senate, not one about signing it.

3. Finally the Senator making the comment would have to be an idiot to make that statement since it seems to have widespread bipartisan support. There was virtually no opposition. What party is in power? What is the partisan breakdown in the Senate? If we're apologizing for something, (never stated for what), the margin would never have been this large but it is and it is and it is not stated why. However, maybe she's an independent and just likes to run her mouth.

It is not worth doing the rating, since the scenario is all wrong.