| 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 | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 13 2012 23:57 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone see any political upside for Obama with this ongoing mess in the Middle East at our embassies? I'm having a hard time seeing it. No, the only "upside" I see is that there is still time before the election for a resolution or at least for things to settle down. The situation itself cannot do him any good. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:06 Signet wrote: No, the only "upside" I see is that there is still time before the election for a resolution or at least for things to settle down. The situation itself cannot do him any good. If he were running against, say, Huntsman (or even McCain) I'd say it can't do him any good. When your opponents have next to no foreign policy expertise, haven't even discussed foreign policy in their campaign, and have no comprehensive plan for foreign policy it's not going to hurt him terribly much and may help him if Romney makes the wrong move. I mean, what is Romney going to say? "Oh, I wouldn't have embassies there" or "oh, I totally would have crushed the militias" or "oh, I would have placated extremist Muslims more efficiently?" That last one is the only logical statement to make, and Romney would be hugely flip-flopping to make it. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On September 13 2012 23:57 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone see any political upside for Obama with this ongoing mess in the Middle East at our embassies? I'm having a hard time seeing it. A potential victory could come in mistakes by Romney of over-criticising and coming off as irrational. Although I suppose that depends on your point of view. I have no complaints about how he has handled it so far. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:06 Signet wrote: No, the only "upside" I see is that there is still time before the election for a resolution or at least for things to settle down. The situation itself cannot do him any good. I would say the only "upside" has already happened in that it gave Romney a chance to as the president put it "shoot first and aim later". | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 13 2012 23:57 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone see any political upside for Obama with this ongoing mess in the Middle East at our embassies? I'm having a hard time seeing it. Nada. It's really a shame that hardcore Muslims are so sensitive that a stupid 'movie' made by a single, ignorant asshat would result in this kind of over-reaction. Don't get me wrong, the video is stupid and disrespectful, but you don't see Jewish people tossing over cars for every time Mel Gibson trolls America. It's hard not to believe there isn't someone Anti-American, Anti-Israel organization fanning the flames over there. This kind of over-reaction is just a sign of how insulated the population in Islamic countries are from the vagaries of Western Culture, where occasionally, yes, an asshole with a camera is going to say or do something stupid. I hope nobody in Yemen happens upon 4chan, Reddit, or fuck, TL. It's liable to start World War III. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 13 2012 23:57 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone see any political upside for Obama with this ongoing mess in the Middle East at our embassies? I'm having a hard time seeing it. I thought that diplomatic/military tensions overseas typically helped incumbents. No? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:31 Mohdoo wrote: I thought that diplomatic/military tensions overseas typically helped incumbents. No? Only if things are going well. Obama has two problems. One, he embraced the Arab Spring. Second, and like it or not, democrats have the stink of weakness when it comes to foreign policy. I think Obama would do himself well to be more aggressive with Egypt. They haven't been nearly apologetic enough, which means either that Obama is letting them off the hook in whatever private conversations his administration is having with them, or that Egypt is getting ready to become the next Iran and really doesn't give a crap. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote: Only if things are going well. Obama has two problems. One, he embraced the Arab Spring. Second, and like it or not, democrats have the stink of weakness when it comes to foreign policy. I think Obama would do himself well to be more aggressive with Egypt. They haven't been nearly apologetic enough, which means either that Obama is letting them off the hook in whatever private conversations his administration is having with them, or that Egypt is getting ready to become the next Iran and really doesn't give a crap. Actually, it doesn't really matter how things are going. No one in 2004 would have said that the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were going "well" (well, at least no one with a shred of sense) but they were still a pretty big advantage for Bush. People don't want to change leaders in a time of turmoil. Also, Democrats hardly have a stink of being "weak" after the fiasco that was the Bush administration's policies. Unless you're defining "weak" as "unwilling to Invade Iran over them taking a drone that crash-landed in their territory" or you're talking to people that are already voting Republican, I suppose. The one big thing that would let Romney meaningfully paint Obama as weak in foreign policy to a significant voting block in the upcoming election is a crisis in Israel/Iranian relations, which I'm sure Netanyahu will try his best to arrange before November. Edit: Note that this last statement is not suggesting collusion, just saying it would be in Netanyahu's best interest to do so for the country he serves. Edit2: On September 14 2012 01:44 Signet wrote: A large percentage of this country thinks we should shoot first, shoot second, keep shooting, then eventually aim/ask questions/etc once everybody's dead. This also helps propagate the meme that Obama is weak in defense. (which, yes, is stupid. but elections are all about that sort of stupid talking point used by both parties.) And it gives Romney a response to use if Obama brings up OBL in the debates. This is exactly the kind of thing Romney cannot bring up in the debates because he has absolutely no response when Obama asks him what he would have done differently. None whatsoever. A debate lets them actually exchange ideas. This is only useful as an attack ad soundbite, and one in poor taste at that. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:17 Adreme wrote: I would say the only "upside" has already happened in that it gave Romney a chance to as the president put it "shoot first and aim later". A large percentage of this country thinks we should shoot first, shoot second, keep shooting, then eventually aim/ask questions/etc once everybody's dead. This also helps propagate the meme that Obama is weak in defense. (which, yes, is stupid. but elections are all about that sort of stupid talking point used by both parties.) And it gives Romney a response to use if Obama brings up OBL in the debates. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote: Only if things are going well. Obama has two problems. One, he embraced the Arab Spring. Second, and like it or not, democrats have the stink of weakness when it comes to foreign policy. I think Obama would do himself well to be more aggressive with Egypt. They haven't been nearly apologetic enough, which means either that Obama is letting them off the hook in whatever private conversations his administration is having with them, or that Egypt is getting ready to become the next Iran and really doesn't give a crap. I would argue that the simple presence of foreign policy stuff going on serves as a reminder that Romney has no experience. And while its easy to cite the fact that you can just surround yourself with foreign policy types of people, I do believe that there is benefit to a president having that experience as well. And if things go well, all the better for Obama. I really don't see Egypt deciding to go Iran on the world. They've got so much other shit to sort out that the idea of trying to try to be a bully seems out of the question. They are still figuring out how their government even works, let alone going to war. Obama recently said Egypt is neither ally nor enemy: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy-133302861--abc-news-politics.html I really just think people see it as: "Bad shits going on. As long as it doesn't get out of control, Obama is doing just fine." | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:44 Signet wrote: A large percentage of this country thinks we should shoot first, shoot second, keep shooting, then eventually aim/ask questions/etc once everybody's dead. This also helps propagate the meme that Obama is weak in defense. (which, yes, is stupid. but elections are all about that sort of stupid talking point used by both parties.) And it gives Romney a response to use if Obama brings up OBL in the debates. It would help if everytime his statement was played on the news the news didnt then explain what hes talking about which makes his statement seem silly then talk about whether it was smart to do and then the Republican who the stations put on to defend it basically concedes it was a stupid thing to say, as happened on CNN and Fox. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22452 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:03 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't worry much about the whole "Romney has no foreign policy experience thing." Obama had even less when he was a candidate, and voters certainly didn't blink. But Obama showed his ability to reason during his campaign in the way the acted. Romney sofar hasnt done anything that would indicate he can manage foreign policy aside from a victory trip to the US biggest ally which backfired on him. Your vastly underestimating the power of Obamas charisma is convincing people. Besides. Obama was up vs the Bush foreign policy. A squirrel would be an improvement. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:36 xDaunt wrote: Only if things are going well. Obama has two problems. One, he embraced the Arab Spring. Second, and like it or not, democrats have the stink of weakness when it comes to foreign policy. I think Obama would do himself well to be more aggressive with Egypt. They haven't been nearly apologetic enough, which means either that Obama is letting them off the hook in whatever private conversations his administration is having with them, or that Egypt is getting ready to become the next Iran and really doesn't give a crap. I think the both sides are playing their hands close to their chest. Obama knows that admonishing Egypt only strengthen Anti-Americanism in Islam. And while he can condemn the stupidity of the video, he's not going to apologize for an American's right to free speech, no matter how absurd it is. Meanwhile, Morsi has his own base to appeal to. Remember Morsi only won by default -- the two more moderate candidates in the election split their votes. The protests might give him the opportunity to gain some leverage in his own government, including military leaders, that would prefer a moderate approach to policy. It's only been a couple of days. Right now, it's a staring contest. They're sizing each other up. The only person these protests help is Mitt Romney. It helps blow over some of the stink from his big dump yesterday, and takes some of the sheen off of Obama's foreign policy record before the debates. Personally, I think the Neocon foreign policy of forcing everyone to love America is -- well, fucking stupid, but at least they're be no delusions about just how politically volatile and chaotic the Middle East actually is. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:10 Gorsameth wrote: But Obama showed his ability to reason during his campaign in the way the acted. Romney sofar hasnt done anything that would indicate he can manage foreign policy aside from a victory trip to the US biggest ally which backfired on him. Your vastly underestimating the power of Obamas charisma is convincing people. Besides. Obama was up vs the Bush foreign policy. A squirrel would be an improvement. Whom exactly has Obama "persuaded?" Here's my score: 1) He's insulted the Brits; 2) He's alienating Israel; 3) He screw up with Canada by not agreeing to the XL pipeline; 4) Russia thumbs its nose at him despite the whole "reset button" thing; 5) The "Arab Spring" countries don't give a shit about Obama at best, and at worst, they're protesting him (like outside our Egyptian consulate). 6) Obama hasn't solved Afghanistan. 7) Obama hasn't done anything effective with regards to halting Iran from pursuing a nuke. The only thing that Obama has done well is kill terrorists, which has nothing to do with "persuasion." So where am I wrong here? Whom has Obama "persuaded?" | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:03 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't worry much about the whole "Romney has no foreign policy experience thing." Obama had even less when he was a candidate, and voters certainly didn't blink. Biden helped. And voters where suffering Bush-fatigue. Not everyone agrees with Obama, but the average person would consider him more of a success then Bush. The difference this time is that Romney is up against an incumbent who people actually feel is doing a reasonable job. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote: Whom exactly has Obama "persuaded?" Here's my score: 1) He's insulted the Brits; 2) He's alienating Israel; 3) He screw up with Canada by not agreeing to the XL pipeline; 4) Russia thumbs its nose at him despite the whole "reset button" thing; 5) The "Arab Spring" countries don't give a shit about Obama at best, and at worst, they're protesting him (like outside our Egyptian consulate). 6) Obama hasn't solved Afghanistan. 7) Obama hasn't done anything effective with regards to halting Iran from pursuing a nuke. The only thing that Obama has done well is kill terrorists, which has nothing to do with "persuasion." So where am I wrong here? Whom has Obama "persuaded?" And Romney said he would invade Iran and has also managed to do everything on that list except alienate Israel. And not solve Afghanistan, I suppose, but he hasn't even breathed a word about it. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
QE-Infinity here we go. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On September 14 2012 02:03 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't worry much about the whole "Romney has no foreign policy experience thing." Obama had even less when he was a candidate, and voters certainly didn't blink. Difference being that europe more or less universally support him over Bush and now Romney. From what i've heard on the radio, people consider Romney a joke. Being a mormon is considered being a weirdo here. :D | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
