EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 216
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42688 Posts
On July 27 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote: How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs! Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution... In fairness it's not as easy a crowd as you'd think. The British people didn't go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair did. A million people marched on the streets in London in the anti-war rally. Furthermore if the Democrats and Republicans were to run in the UK you'd expect the Democrats to get about 95% of the vote, Republicans are never going to have an easy time over here because of the differences in the political spectrum. Also regarding his social and financial status, Romney would almost certainly not be a leadership candidate in the UK, he's too isolated from the public. He'd most likely end up in an unelected position such as party chairman where he could use his wealth and connections for the good of the party, rather than in the spotlight. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42688 Posts
On July 27 2012 15:09 Mohdoo wrote: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/26/romney_once_called_england_just_a_small_island.html Comments like this always amuse me. While he is correct that a country with a small army and an overwhelmingly powerful navy would run into problems if it wasn't an island it is probably something that the military planners considered when they decided that they were going to spend their budget on ships instead of tanks. I have this image of Romney sitting in that meeting and it going "But what if we get attacked by land?", "We're an island", "Yes, but what if we weren't? What if we were landlocked, we'd be totally wasting all this money on a navy if we were. There'd be nowhere to put all the ships". | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21685 Posts
On July 27 2012 23:20 KwarK wrote: Comments like this always amuse me. While he is correct that a country with a small army and an overwhelmingly powerful navy would run into problems if it wasn't an island it is probably something that the military planners considered when they decided that they were going to spend their budget on ships instead of tanks. I have this image of Romney sitting in that meeting and it going "But what if we get attacked by land?", "We're an island", "Yes, but what if we weren't? What if we were landlocked, we'd be totally wasting all this money on a navy if we were. There'd be nowhere to put all the ships". Haha thanks for that mental image :p | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 27 2012 23:15 KwarK wrote: In fairness it's not as easy a crowd as you'd think. The British people didn't go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair did. A million people marched on the streets in London in the anti-war rally. Furthermore if the Democrats and Republicans were to run in the UK you'd expect the Democrats to get about 95% of the vote, Republicans are never going to have an easy time over here because of the differences in the political spectrum. Also regarding his social and financial status, Romney would almost certainly not be a leadership candidate in the UK, he's too isolated from the public. He'd most likely end up in an unelected position such as party chairman where he could use his wealth and connections for the good of the party, rather than in the spotlight. Yeah, I think it's worth noting that Europe is going through a turbulent, anti-conservative (i.e. anti-austerity) movement right now. All of the center-right governments in Europe are losing their elections very badly and David Cameron's days as Prime Minister are numbered. Romney isn't likely to be welcomed as a conservative in many parts of the world right now. But he did flub this pretty badly, which is ugly since one of the GOP's main complaints against Obama is how gaffe-prone he is. Good thing nobody ever accused American presidents of being good at subtlety. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 27 2012 22:03 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Because clearly the opinion of a different country matters to someone running for president of the US. Would we like to have a competition for all the allies Obama has outright insulted or snubbed? Oh please, do go on. Which allies did Obama 'snub'? Oh that's right, it was Mitt Romney who literally, in writing, called our 'greatest ally' an irrelevant, puny country! Clearly, Mitt Romney and his campaign care about what other countries think, or else he wouldn't be pimping his fraudulent, baseless argument that Obama has alienated, or can't connect with, it's traditionally 'Anglo-Saxon' allies "wink-wink." You have no concept of how much Obama has improved America's brand and reputation outside your country. And Obama has leveraged the support from other countries to enforce crippling sanctions on Iran, fight the war in Afghanistan and aid the overthrow of Gaddafi. Romney has made it clear that he has no original ideas or concept for Foreign Policy. In fact, if you look at his 'plans', they are essentially things that the Obama administration has or is currently doing. The only think Romney differs on is his insistence on adding heated, polarizing, bolivating rhetoric about American Exceptionalism and No Apologies. In other words, Romney's agenda on foreign policy is to do what Obama is doing, but be more obnoxious and weird about it. Good luck with that. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:11 imareaver3 wrote: Wrong case, incidentally--you should be citing McDonald v Chicago. DC v Heller is rather narrow. Other than that, I think you're misunderstanding the "monopoly on force" idea. When we say the government has a "monopoly on force", we mean that only the government (as a representation of the people, in democratic thought) has the ability to decide when violence can be used. Individuals do not have that right. Even in cases where individuals can use force (self-defense) without explicit governmental approval, they can do so only when following certain laws. Were the government not to have a monopoly on force, anyone would be able to choose to use violence at any time; for example, I could shoot a random person that I think is a murderer without having to go through those unpleasant procedures called "fair trials" and "due process". The loss of the government's monopoly on force is essentially the definition of anarchy. jury nullification | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 27 2012 22:52 bonifaceviii wrote: I admit it, the "backside" thing made me chuckle a little. It's a non-story but it's kind of funny. He also referred to Prime Minister Cameron as 'Mr. Leader'. It's not a crime. It's just that Mitt Romney's consistently strange choice of words just reminds everyone that he's a little bit 'off'. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORySBilNy0&feature=youtu.be What Mitt Romney said wasn't that bad. But it's a little like Richard Branson showing up at the World Trade Center construction site, and going, "Hmmm, I don't know if these New Yorkers will pull this project thing together ... ." Everyone American would be thinking, "Who the fuck does this rich British guy think he is?" | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems. + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORySBilNy0&feature=youtu.be The point isn't that it isn't true, it's that if you're thrown charity meetings by friendly governments you don't say those things. Romney is not a US diplomat, not a leader in business or civil society and nonetheless meets with top officials about essentially nothing. The entire trip is about looking good and avoiding actual policy questions (but hey, at least EU reporters are competent enough to ask actual foreign policy questions). He's managing to screw up doing nothing. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it? It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way. It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: The point isn't that it isn't true, it's that if you're thrown charity meetings by friendly governments you don't say those things. Romney is not a US diplomat, not a leader in business or civil society and nonetheless meets with top officials about essentially nothing. The entire trip is about looking good and avoiding actual policy questions (but hey, at least EU reporters are competent enough to ask actual foreign policy questions). He's managing to screw up doing nothing. It's not so big of a deal that need this many headlines and discussions about it, though. It's just Romney's opponents trying to find things to support their preconceived bias. Either that or people actually buy into the media sensationalizing a story to bait more views. | ||
| ||
