In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush".
Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too.
EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no.
No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
I've got a legislative proposal i'm going to send to my rep. This seemed like a good place to mention it as well; the goal is to deal with a peculiar problem that I saw an article about.
A gay couple got married somewhere that is legal (Massachusetts I think); then moved to another state that does not recognize gay marriages. They are now legal residents of the second state. They now want to get a divorce. As the state they are in does not recognize gay marriage, they are not considered married, and so cannot get a divorce. They cannot get a divorce from the state they got married in, since they are no longer residents of that state.
That's the issue that occurred; however I realized it could have a far more problematic extension: Suppose person A in that couple wants to get a straight marriage. Since their current state does not recognize their gay marriage, and considers them unmarried; Person A would be allowed to get a straight marriage.
This presents a problem: they now have 2 legal marriages; normally in such cases, the 2nd one simply doesn't count; but by the laws of the current state; the first marriage doesn't exist, so the 2nd one is indeed the only legal one and there is no problem. Under the laws of the first state, person A is now committing bigamy, and the 2nd marriage is invalid. This leaves the real problem: what does the federal government do when it comes up? Is it bigamy under federal law? both marriages are legal under the laws of the state they are in; it's possible different federal rules might apply in different circumstances (like government pension may have different rules from taxes, and other rules might apply in other cases). Which marriage does the federal government recognize?
So I propose a solution: Any couple that was legally married in one state, but now has it's residence in a state that will not recognize such marriages (and will hence not grant divorces for such), and cannot get a divorce from the original state of marriages; may file a petition for divorce in federal court.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote: Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion'
I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating
Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word").
On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush".
Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too.
EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no.
I'm not really trying to state that Obama has been good here. I'm trying to make you remember/realize just how bad bush was. The biggest norwegian newspaper had a _daily_ column with a stupid quote by Bush, it wasn't running for the entire 8 year presidency, but definitely for a couple. the war against Iraq was as big of a diplomatic disaster as Vietnam. I myself have never been as politically angry, and worried about the future of the world, as I was during the first years of Bush's presidency, witnessing the buildup to the Iraq war, where lies and disinformation were blatantly circulated.
Like, in all honesty, part of the reason why Western Europe has received Obama much better than Bush, and why western europe will continue to remember Obama more favourably than Bush even after he leaves office, even if he continues to disappoint us, is quite simply that he is a democrat and rhetorically much more in line with western european values. And currently, while europeans are absolutely angry about NSA, the continued source for ridicule of american politics stems from the american tea party, not the president. And really, while obamas numbers have dropped significantly, and while they will probably continue to drop some because this type of negative momentum is typically very hard to change as a president (or as any politician really), Obama is going to have to royally fuck up to be remembered as poorly as Bush was; I'm pretty certain a poll across western europe of worst american president ever would have him win a landslide election - I don't think there are any statistics for that though.
Edit: Not to mention that Bush, in Europe, is still blamed for the still-ongoing economic crisis.
On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush".
Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too.
EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no.
I'm not really trying to state that Obama has been good here. I'm trying to make you remember/realize just how bad bush was. The biggest norwegian newspaper had a _daily_ column with a stupid quote by Bush, it wasn't running for the entire 8 year presidency, but definitely for a couple. the war against Iraq was as big of a diplomatic disaster as Vietnam. I myself have never been as politically angry, and worried about the future of the world, as I was during the first years of Bush's presidency, witnessing the buildup to the Iraq war, where lies and disinformation were blatantly circulated.
Like, in all honesty, part of the reason why Western Europe has received Obama much better than Bush, and why western europe will continue to remember Obama more favourably than Bush even after he leaves office, even if he continues to disappoint us, is quite simply that he is a democrat and rhetorically much more in line with western european values. And currently, while europeans are absolutely angry about NSA, the continued source for ridicule of american politics stems from the american tea party, not the president. And really, while obamas numbers have dropped significantly, and while they will probably continue to drop some because this type of negative momentum is typically very hard to change as a president (or as any politician really), Obama is going to have to royally fuck up to be remembered as poorly as Bush was; I'm pretty certain a poll across western europe of worst american president ever would have him win a landslide election - I don't think there are any statistics for that though.
Edit: Not to mention that Bush, in Europe, is still blamed for the still-ongoing economic crisis.
Jesus, how long does the "not Bush" rope go? At what point do you simply say "Obama messed this up"?
Edit: you could have stopped after the first sentence is what I'm trying to say.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush".
Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too.
EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no.
I'm not really trying to state that Obama has been good here. I'm trying to make you remember/realize just how bad bush was. The biggest norwegian newspaper had a _daily_ column with a stupid quote by Bush, it wasn't running for the entire 8 year presidency, but definitely for a couple. the war against Iraq was as big of a diplomatic disaster as Vietnam. I myself have never been as politically angry, and worried about the future of the world, as I was during the first years of Bush's presidency, witnessing the buildup to the Iraq war, where lies and disinformation were blatantly circulated.
Like, in all honesty, part of the reason why Western Europe has received Obama much better than Bush, and why western europe will continue to remember Obama more favourably than Bush even after he leaves office, even if he continues to disappoint us, is quite simply that he is a democrat and rhetorically much more in line with western european values. And currently, while europeans are absolutely angry about NSA, the continued source for ridicule of american politics stems from the american tea party, not the president. And really, while obamas numbers have dropped significantly, and while they will probably continue to drop some because this type of negative momentum is typically very hard to change as a president (or as any politician really), Obama is going to have to royally fuck up to be remembered as poorly as Bush was; I'm pretty certain a poll across western europe of worst american president ever would have him win a landslide election - I don't think there are any statistics for that though.
Edit: Not to mention that Bush, in Europe, is still blamed for the still-ongoing economic crisis.
If your definition of "good foreign policy" is "foreign policy that was popular in Europe," then your argument makes perfect sense.
On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush".
Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too.
EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no.
I'm not really trying to state that Obama has been good here. I'm trying to make you remember/realize just how bad bush was. The biggest norwegian newspaper had a _daily_ column with a stupid quote by Bush, it wasn't running for the entire 8 year presidency, but definitely for a couple. the war against Iraq was as big of a diplomatic disaster as Vietnam. I myself have never been as politically angry, and worried about the future of the world, as I was during the first years of Bush's presidency, witnessing the buildup to the Iraq war, where lies and disinformation were blatantly circulated.
Like, in all honesty, part of the reason why Western Europe has received Obama much better than Bush, and why western europe will continue to remember Obama more favourably than Bush even after he leaves office, even if he continues to disappoint us, is quite simply that he is a democrat and rhetorically much more in line with western european values. And currently, while europeans are absolutely angry about NSA, the continued source for ridicule of american politics stems from the american tea party, not the president. And really, while obamas numbers have dropped significantly, and while they will probably continue to drop some because this type of negative momentum is typically very hard to change as a president (or as any politician really), Obama is going to have to royally fuck up to be remembered as poorly as Bush was; I'm pretty certain a poll across western europe of worst american president ever would have him win a landslide election - I don't think there are any statistics for that though.
Edit: Not to mention that Bush, in Europe, is still blamed for the still-ongoing economic crisis.
If your definition of "good foreign policy" is "foreign policy that was popular in Europe," then your argument makes perfect sense.
i'd rather that than it be "we do whatever the fuck we want, cuze i'm Elegant Elliot anybody gets in my way i punch their fuckin eyes out GANGSTA STYLE"
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
I don't think conservatism is being propelled by ramping up oil production. The main reason the conservatives are popular is that they are perceived as having done a good job handling the economy. Canadians read the news about financial crises in the US, financial crises in Europe, and we see that our country is doing just fine while the rest of the West is is pretty dire shape. I think generally speaking, most voters give Stephen Harper credit for that.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
I don't think conservatism is being propelled by ramping up oil production. The main reason the conservatives are popular is that they are perceived as having done a good job handling the economy. Canadians read the news about financial crises in the US, financial crises in Europe, and we see that our country is doing just fine while the rest of the West is is pretty dire shape. I think generally speaking, most voters give Stephen Harper credit for that.
In what sense are conservatives popular? They never reached anything near majority in the election.
Your last sentence: I have more faith in our voters. I think they're more knowledgeable than that...I hope.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
I don't think conservatism is being propelled by ramping up oil production. The main reason the conservatives are popular is that they are perceived as having done a good job handling the economy. Canadians read the news about financial crises in the US, financial crises in Europe, and we see that our country is doing just fine while the rest of the West is is pretty dire shape. I think generally speaking, most voters give Stephen Harper credit for that.
To what degree is Canada's relative economic prosperity due to the ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
On November 15 2013 07:24 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that anyone pretends that Obama is good at international relations any more.
Not as good as Clinton being in bed with the Saudis, but no one can be worse than Bush.
Are you kidding? For as bad as Bush was, Obama is infinitely worse. He has alienated most of our key allies (UK, Israel, and Saudis immediately come to mind, not counting numerous other smaller nations like Poland) and ceded American influence in the Middle East to Russia. Obama's foreign policy has been about as disastrous as it can be in terms of managing diplomatic relations. The only thing that he has done a good job of is avoiding getting us entangled in additional wars. However, the way in which he has done it has been completely inept (see Syria).
Your posts on U.S. foreign policy are basically a combination of Republican talking points and Krauthammer blog posts. Please stop pretending you have even any remote knowledge of how the U.S. diplomatic relations' have been going on under Obama. For example (and I've mentioned this before), if the U.S. under Obama has been so bad at managing diplomatic relations, how come it achieved all of its objectives and more during the extremely delicate 2010 IMF quota and governance reform? What's that, you've never heard of it? News flash: the media barely mentions anything of what U.S. foreign policy actually achieves. If you think for one second that most world countries are less likely to work with the U.S. under Obama, even after the NSA scandal, than they were under Bush, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. None. And I'm not only talking about bilateral relations either - the Obama administration is generally much more apt than the Bush administration at working with other countries in international organizations (which doesn't say much when Bush appointed someone like Bolton to represent the U.S. at the UN). Now, if you're only interested in listening to the Obama bashing that goes on in Krauthammer columns because it's cognitively comfortable to you, be my guest, but don't act you've got any actual understanding of international relations. If you're actually interested in learning about U.S. foreign policy, then open up a few IR academic journals instead.
Seriously? This is your rebuttal to my point that Obama has been bad at foreign policy? When compared to his fuck ups in Syria (and elsewhere), you might as well have told me that Obama successfully negotiated international standards for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
I don't think conservatism is being propelled by ramping up oil production. The main reason the conservatives are popular is that they are perceived as having done a good job handling the economy. Canadians read the news about financial crises in the US, financial crises in Europe, and we see that our country is doing just fine while the rest of the West is is pretty dire shape. I think generally speaking, most voters give Stephen Harper credit for that.
To what degree is Canada's relative economic prosperity due to the ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
Not much I don't think. The economy has been stable all across the country, not just in Alberta.
On November 15 2013 11:53 Falling wrote: No-one could've been happier that Obama became elected when he did then Prime-Minister Stephen Harper. Prime-Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberals parleyed a form of anti-Americanism during the Bush years as a sort of 'being Canadian.' Harper on the other hand, really, really wanted to work with Americans, but in the later years it was just so hard to speak positively of the US because of public preception of US foreign policy.
Obama being as popular as he was amongst Canadians was exactly what Harper wanted to try to establish better relations with the US (even if for the US, Canada is a periphery issue.) But I'm not at all surprised with those poll results since then. The drone strikes and NSA spying issues and the like would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the general Canadian... even with our own government is probably monkeying around with corporate spying in Brazil.
I would not yet be ready to say Obama is worse than Bush in regards to foreign policy as far as the Canadian preception is concerned. US was perhaps The Leader under Bush, but by 2003 not very many people were following. Chretien did a little dance to get out of publically committing to Iraq. And those that were led into Iraq as part of the multi-national force had to quickly back-pedal. Or if they publically supported the invasion, they were eating their words a year later (Harper again.) It was hard for sympathetic non-American leaders to stand up and publically support the US in those years.
Well...yes and no. The bigger part of this is domestic politics. In Canada at least, the country was Liberal in 2000 but the Conservative party started gaining ground over the next decade (and today the government is solidly Conservative while Liberals have fallen apart).
It's natural as they lose support that Liberal leaders try to make a lot of hay by hating a conservative leader in the US. But the Conservative Party in Canada is not much like the Republicans, so they never embraced Bush, particularly not during his second term when he turned more towards social conservatism and certainly not with the subprime crisis.
Put it this way for now - there's not much upside to criticizing Obama as a foreign leader yet and there's definitely nothing to like about the way the Republicans have tangled up the US government this year. We can argue about its virtues as a course of domestic US policy, but nobody in other OECD countries wants their legislature to act the way Congress has.
To what degree is conservatism in Canada being propelled by the country's ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
I don't think conservatism is being propelled by ramping up oil production. The main reason the conservatives are popular is that they are perceived as having done a good job handling the economy. Canadians read the news about financial crises in the US, financial crises in Europe, and we see that our country is doing just fine while the rest of the West is is pretty dire shape. I think generally speaking, most voters give Stephen Harper credit for that.
To what degree is Canada's relative economic prosperity due to the ramping up of oil production from tar sands?
It's mostly been our heavily centralized banks.
Canada took a pretty big hit during financially as well. We just didn't have that many organizations collapse.
On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote: Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion'
I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating
Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word").
I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it
is Comrade Barry the biggest bastard we've ever known?
I am confused. So they are mad that he is too repetitive in his generic praise for allied countries or not repetitive enough? THAT BASTARD!
or that barry is a professional liar? you do realise that not everyone can be the 'strongest and closest ally' at the same time? That's the whole point. And the superiority complex of this guy who is the worst president the US has ever had, possibly. Who gave him the right to judge what countries were 'punching above their weight' or not? Frankly he should critique his own performance.
Gonna agree with Daunt here, Obama is much worse than Bush. Obama's globalised drone terrorist campaign has made the enemies of Europe & the Anglophone world stronger and bankrupted the US of respect in the eyes of the nations of the world - a huge blunder going into the new multipolar 21st century world order: far from retaining 'superpower' status the American Republic is probably going to become the new 'sick man' of the world while they are paying off all the debt they've accumulated
perhaps giving more taxpayers' money to zombie energy firms that go bankrupt like Solyndra will kickstart the American economy, what have you got in the bag, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barry?
How long did it take you to program a bot that scoops up Fox News talking points and then joins them in a sentence? I find natural language processors pretty daunting and find your technical acumen quite impressive.
I see you have nothing to say in response to my arguments
I'd say I was disappointed or surprised but then again, you're a Democrat.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush.
personally i think the fault lies totally with obama
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
As far as NSA goes, those of us who value civil liberties are outraged that the All Seeing Eye that is the NSA is watching our every move... maybe being from Northern Ireland makes me value my own privacy more since the Democratic Machine actually weaponized Ireland when they let the Mafia and Irish-American IRA sympathisers give weapons to Sectarian Irish Republicans. Where does the NSA come into this? Because the IRA army council has connections with the global anti-British Irish Diaspora in Australia/New York/Boston/Liverpool/London east-end... the IRA probably has more intelligence than Her Majesty's Armed Forces thanks to Obama's global spy programme.
Note that the IRA used Armalites rather than AK47's, this being during the Cold War... the IRA wouldn't have re-emerged if it weren't for the Democrats playing a blind eye to it due to their own anti-British prejudice.
Truth is the American Republic needs another party system, frankly what we have here is a One party state with two factions: the Business Party with Corporatist and Socialist factions.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush.
personally i think the fault lies totally with obama
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
As far as NSA goes, those of us who value civil liberties are outraged that the All Seeing Eye that is the NSA is watching our every move... maybe being from Northern Ireland makes me value my own privacy more since the Democratic Machine actually weaponized Ireland when they let the Mafia and Irish-American IRA sympathisers give weapons to Sectarian Irish Republicans. Where does the NSA come into this? Because the IRA army council has connections with the global anti-British Irish Diaspora in Australia/New York/Boston/Liverpool/London east-end... the IRA probably has more intelligence than Her Majesty's Armed Forces thanks to Obama's global spy programme.
Note that the IRA used Armalites rather than AK47's, this being during the Cold War... the IRA wouldn't have re-emerged if it weren't for the Democrats playing a blind eye to it due to their own anti-British prejudice.
Truth is the American Republic needs another party system, frankly what we have here is a One party state with two factions: the Business Party with Corporatist and Socialist factions.
Your rage makes it sound like you think a republican president wouldn't be using drones and wouldn't have allowed the NSA to set up a global surveillance system. It's a bit futile to discuss party politics period when you bring up topics that both parties are in unanimous agreement on.
You are aware the drone strikes began under Bush right? You are aware that the NSA was setting up a global surveillance system under Bush right?
EPT
