On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
On April 29 2012 10:14 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, Obama broke the vast majority of promises he made 4 years ago, but I think he's still untouchable.
Overall I think its a good record. Most of the time I try to stay away from politics, but I feel we are in a special period in history and Obama needs our support.
On April 27 2012 02:48 GhostTK wrote: I hate Mitt Romney. He stands for everythin im against. i really hope he doesn't win. My preferred presidential canidate was Ron Paul, 2 bad he withdrew.
He didn't withdraw, and is in fact, still in the running, despite attempts by the GOP to steal delegates from him
Funny statement considering the Ron Paul compaign was actually the one trying to steal delegates from other candidates at various caucuses, with the RP supporters consistently staying after the vote to get elected to represent the state. If the other candidates had be doing that to Ron Paul, the rage of RP supporters would make every political forum online unreadable.
Face it, Romney doesn't need to "steal" delegates from Ron Paul - he's vastly more popular among the Republican electorate and will win the nomination in a landslide in terms of delegate count.
How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates.
lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama.
Imagine the following scenario: there are 1000 people voting in a caucus with ten delegates to be awarded. 990 of these people vote for Ron Paul, the last ten for Romney. After the 990 people who voted for Ron Paul end up leaving once the voting is over, the 10 people who voted for Romney take the delegate seats, with the intention of giving their votes to Romney - therefore completely nullifying the entire vote that just took place, that was the entire point of the caucus, and which Ron Paul overwhelmingly won. This is pretty much what's going on in some caucuses (or at least what did go on in some places), except Ron Paul was the one profiting from it rather than Romney/Santorum/etc. If this was happening to Ron Paul, his supporters would be OUTRAGED.
Actually no. You are taking the straw polls (aka non-binding presidential preference) as a binding result. It isn't. I'm glad that the folks who follow politics for 4 hours every 4 years who just drive down to their local precinct aren't the predominant factor. That's not 'civic duty'. That's called mass idiocy ruling the entire country -- which I suppose is not too far different from what we have now, but I prefer the more republican civically minded systems such as caucus and conventions to elect delegates.
No one has stolen anything. This is the way the system is intended, and we are merely adept enough to beat the establishment at their own game. It says something about the candidate who can't even inspire a few hundred folks to put in more than a hours time. That's electable? Ha! Romney is a tool. We aren't cheating and by defintion we cannot. You call it cheating that we brought out more people to the conventions. What the fuck, seriously?
Your fault is presuming a straw poll to be meaningful and binding when they aren't. Perhaps you should argue the case why they should, and why Primaries without conventions and delegates are better, and why the 'Will of the People' is sacrosanct. That is, why the Tyranny of the Majority trumps the rights of the minority.
I wish more Americans would educate themselves in regards to how an individual gets elected. You can harp all you want about how Ron Paul hasn't won a state, but if you know anything about the straw poll results, you know that they mean nothing. Delegates at the local level select state delegates, state delegates select national delegates, and national delegates select the nominee. If you follow any of the actual delegate results, you'll know that Ron Paul is amassing a good number of delegates in several states. Don't believe the numbers you're getting out of MSM outlets, because they're based on projections by analysts basing their assumptions on poll results.
Here's what happens when a state senator endorses Mitt Romney in front of a room full of delegates (the votes that matter).
Rachel Maddow is the only nationally televised host that is covering this.
It's sad that when the MSM tells everyone that something has been decided, everyone leans back and blindly accepts their wisdom, even before anything's actually been decided.
I'm not so optimistic that I think Ron Paul will win, but I am optimistic that the numbers the media are reporting are a far shot from the actual numbers (of delegates).
On April 27 2012 02:48 GhostTK wrote: I hate Mitt Romney. He stands for everythin im against. i really hope he doesn't win. My preferred presidential canidate was Ron Paul, 2 bad he withdrew.
He didn't withdraw, and is in fact, still in the running, despite attempts by the GOP to steal delegates from him
Funny statement considering the Ron Paul compaign was actually the one trying to steal delegates from other candidates at various caucuses, with the RP supporters consistently staying after the vote to get elected to represent the state. If the other candidates had be doing that to Ron Paul, the rage of RP supporters would make every political forum online unreadable.
Face it, Romney doesn't need to "steal" delegates from Ron Paul - he's vastly more popular among the Republican electorate and will win the nomination in a landslide in terms of delegate count.
How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates.
lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama.
Imagine the following scenario: there are 1000 people voting in a caucus with ten delegates to be awarded. 990 of these people vote for Ron Paul, the last ten for Romney. After the 990 people who voted for Ron Paul end up leaving once the voting is over, the 10 people who voted for Romney take the delegate seats, with the intention of giving their votes to Romney - therefore completely nullifying the entire vote that just took place, that was the entire point of the caucus, and which Ron Paul overwhelmingly won. This is pretty much what's going on in some caucuses (or at least what did go on in some places), except Ron Paul was the one profiting from it rather than Romney/Santorum/etc. If this was happening to Ron Paul, his supporters would be OUTRAGED.
Yeah, they'd be outraged at their fellow Ron Paul supporters for not following the process all the way through and staying to represent Ron Paul as a delegate.
Ron Paul supporters are far more dedicated and far more knowledgeable about the election process, unlike supporters of the other candidates. It's preposterous that you're getting upset over people following procedure, but giving the people who breaking rules a pass.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
This.
Obama hasn't really changed much. He promised the world, and when he took office, he realized that a lot of what Bush was doing was correct. Military surges, Gitmo, Pakistan strikes, etc... I respect Obama for having the ability to acknowledge this privately (even if not publicly), but it'd be nice if both he and Mitt just acknowledged who they were and didn't play to the bases.
Also, I still think Bush was a pretty good leader. He just sucked at media. And the media just LOVED to hate on him. That man made some of the toughest decision an American President has made, none of which were going to be popular ones. I honestly feel bad for him. He was portrayed as a villain across the world for reasons I will never understand. The American people would have had his head on a plate had he not declared war on someone after 9/11. I guess the Iraq invasion may have been ill-advised in hindsight, but on the bright-side, we did get rid of Saddam.
I'm really not sure why the international community hates Bush so much.
On April 29 2012 20:14 Undrass wrote: You wonder why Obama is infinitely better than Bush in foreign affairs? You wonder why the world looked much more dangerous with Bush?
Its because Obama stopped doin things like this:
There is no middle ground when it comes to fighting savages who'd have us all dead if they had their way. Regardless of the things that caused them to rise, we're in the thick of it right now and nothing is going to stop them until we make it where they're no longer a threat. Do you really think that if we abided by their wishes that they would stop and leave us alone? I sure don't.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
This.
Obama hasn't really changed much. He promised the world, and when he took office, he realized that a lot of what Bush was doing was correct. Military surges, Gitmo, Pakistan strikes, etc... I respect Obama for having the ability to acknowledge this privately (even if not publicly), but it'd be nice if both he and Mitt just acknowledged who they were and didn't play to the bases.
Also, I still think Bush was a pretty good leader. He just sucked at media. And the media just LOVED to hate on him. That man made some of the toughest decision an American President has made, none of which were going to be popular ones. I honestly feel bad for him. He was portrayed as a villain across the world for reasons I will never understand. The American people would have had his head on a plate had he not declared war on someone after 9/11. I guess the Iraq invasion may have been ill-advised in hindsight, but on the bright-side, we did get rid of Saddam.
I'm really not sure why the international community hates Bush so much.
People all over the world and particularly in Europe were in the streets to protest against the war. Millions of them. Against war. Maybe it's because the war is more fresh on our minds, I don't know. But Bush went through with his ideas (or yours) disregarding the opinions of a lot of people. That's not the way to make friends.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
This exactly.
Yea, their policies are for a large part the same. Most of the 'foreign folk' aren't naive and understand the wider objectives of US foreign policy, which remain constant. There is however a major difference in how other countries, allies or enemies, are approached and dealt with. Bush managed to screw up relations between most of Europe and the US, which is quite the feat seeing how both sides of the ocean have largely similar geo-political goals.
'Foreign folk' (at least most of us in Europe) understand the need to blow up terrorists, even if they hold an american passport, we'd just appreciate not being bullied into cooperation and forced to contribute to cleaning up your pointless wars. The way Bush treated foreign policy completely destroyed US soft power, whatever there was left of it anyhow, and if you don't see how that could have been dealt with better you're crazy.
(Also, neo-conservatism and wilsonian foreign policy are not the same. One is unilateral, the other multilateral.)
I feel obligated, along with the other well informed folks in this thread to remind everyone that the republican nominating process is not yet over, despite what the media dinosaurs are spoon feeding the masses. Romney will not have the 1144 delegates needed to wrap up the nomination in the first vote, so this discussion is not only premature but somewhat ignorant . . . . Whether Romney ends up winning or not, the events that unfold at the Tampa Florida Convention will have a lot to do with how the election unfolds, and what the Republican platform looks like come general election time.
On April 29 2012 23:02 cosimorondo wrote: I feel obligated, along with the other well informed folks in this thread to remind everyone that the republican nominating process is not yet over, despite what the media dinosaurs are spoon feeding the masses. Romney will not have the 1144 delegates needed to wrap up the nomination in the first vote, so this discussion is not only premature but somewhat ignorant . . . . Whether Romney ends up winning or not, the events that unfold at the Tampa Florida Convention will have a lot to do with how the election unfolds, and what the Republican platform looks like come general election time.
I'm secretly excited, as I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and he's been flipping tables everywhere. I can't wait for the media to have their table flipped.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
This exactly.
Yea, their policies are for a large part the same. Most of the 'foreign folk' aren't naive and understand the wider objectives of US foreign policy, which remain constant. There is however a major difference in how other countries, allies or enemies, are approached and dealt with. Bush managed to screw up relations between most of Europe and the US, which is quite the feat seeing how both sides of the ocean have largely similar geo-political goals.
'Foreign folk' (at least most of us in Europe) understand the need to blow up terrorists, even if they hold an american passport, we'd just appreciate not being bullied into cooperation and forced to contribute to cleaning up your pointless wars. The way Bush treated foreign policy completely destroyed US soft power, whatever there was left of it anyhow, and if you don't see how that could have been dealt with better you're crazy.
(Also, neo-conservatism and wilsonian foreign policy are not the same. One is unilateral, the other multilateral.)
The goals are the same. I'm not too overly concerned with the method to achieve those goals as they both involve war, imperialism, and mass death and destruction. Whether it be one nation or many, the aforementioned remains the same. It's a pox on this world.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
This exactly.
Yea, their policies are for a large part the same. Most of the 'foreign folk' aren't naive and understand the wider objectives of US foreign policy, which remain constant. There is however a major difference in how other countries, allies or enemies, are approached and dealt with. Bush managed to screw up relations between most of Europe and the US, which is quite the feat seeing how both sides of the ocean have largely similar geo-political goals.
'Foreign folk' (at least most of us in Europe) understand the need to blow up terrorists, even if they hold an american passport, we'd just appreciate not being bullied into cooperation and forced to contribute to cleaning up your pointless wars. The way Bush treated foreign policy completely destroyed US soft power, whatever there was left of it anyhow, and if you don't see how that could have been dealt with better you're crazy.
(Also, neo-conservatism and wilsonian foreign policy are not the same. One is unilateral, the other multilateral.)
The goals are the same. I'm not too overly concerned with the method to achieve those goals as they both involve war, imperialism, and mass death and destruction. Whether it be one nation or many, the aforementioned remains the same. It's a pox on this world.
Good for you, but we were discussing why so many foreigners hated Bush and are a lot more positive about Obama. The american government under Obama has been a lot more willing to try multilateral strategies, when possible, which is why we 'like' him more. The 'method' matters a great deal.
Romney remains a dark horse foreign policy wise, but so far he hasn't been impressing me with his particular brand of primary season flamethrowing. I understand that it doesn't say a lot about what he'll actually do in office, but the crude view he has of issues like Iran doesn't bode well.
Next to that, I think its particularly ironic point to 'foreigners' as naive, when large parts of american foreign policy discourse, mainly on the republican side, seems to only involve aggressive behavior towards other states. It's hard to find a countries besides the United States, Iran and North-Korea where promising war yields laud applause.
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected
Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone.
Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it.
Yes, I'd attribute most non-Americans preference for Obama to his knack for foreign relations and affairs. He presents America to the rest of the world with grace and humility, and doesn't needlessly make things adversarial. And he actually seems informed and knowledgeable about international affairs.
Mitt Romney called Russia your Number 1 geopolitical foe -- what planet is he on? That kind of schoolyard fear-mongering might score points with dumb voters, but it actually lowers your standing and credibility in the international community. Remember when the Pentagon changed french fries to Freedom fries? That's something 10 year-olds do. "Waaaah! If you don't do what I say, we're not best friends anymore!"
Even if Obama doesn't get reelected, he was certainly the type of president America needed when anti-American sentiments were at an all time high. People forget that after Katrina, the Iraq War, and market collapse, the international community HATED America and it's government. Seriously -- you have no idea how thoroughly the Bush administration tarnished America's image abroad.
Obama deserves a lot of credit for mending a lot of fences. For example, the way he's handling Iran by punishing them with sanctions is very smart. By demonstrating patience, and going 'through the motions' of diplomacy, America will have the support of the international community if and when it goes to war with Iran, instead of being left holding the bag with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, Obama is simply a charming, funny, likeable guy. After 8 years of Bush's American unironic, jingoistic, self-serving clusterfucking, seeing an American leader with a sense of humor and wit is a nice change of pace.
Even if you hate your president, it's hard to hate the man.
As an American, I find that either the foreign folk are completely naive, or ignorant when it comes to Obama especially in regard to Foreign Policy. Far be it from a different worldview, Obama has embraced and continued apace Bush's neo-conservative and Wilsonian Foreign Policy. Hell, even the Kristol of Neo-Conservative fame has called Obama a Neo-Con at least in regards to FP. More tortures and renditions, even more drone strikes than Bush ever dreamed of, more wars abreast, more aggression, more of the same of everything. Bush never could have gotten away with assassinating American citizens, but Obama does so with impunity, as well as deftly silencing the ignorant anti-war so-called 'left'. Where the hell are they at?
No, if you want a different FP the only choice is Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Non-interventionism and a return to American jurisprudence is what this country and the world needs.
As an aside, I've never seen Obama as a likeable guy. He's always come off as a haughty aristocratic asshole to me. /shrug
This exactly.
Yea, their policies are for a large part the same. Most of the 'foreign folk' aren't naive and understand the wider objectives of US foreign policy, which remain constant. There is however a major difference in how other countries, allies or enemies, are approached and dealt with. Bush managed to screw up relations between most of Europe and the US, which is quite the feat seeing how both sides of the ocean have largely similar geo-political goals.
'Foreign folk' (at least most of us in Europe) understand the need to blow up terrorists, even if they hold an american passport, we'd just appreciate not being bullied into cooperation and forced to contribute to cleaning up your pointless wars. The way Bush treated foreign policy completely destroyed US soft power, whatever there was left of it anyhow, and if you don't see how that could have been dealt with better you're crazy.
(Also, neo-conservatism and wilsonian foreign policy are not the same. One is unilateral, the other multilateral.)
The goals are the same. I'm not too overly concerned with the method to achieve those goals as they both involve war, imperialism, and mass death and destruction. Whether it be one nation or many, the aforementioned remains the same. It's a pox on this world.
Good for you, but we were discussing why so many foreigners hated Bush and are a lot more positive about Obama. The american government under Obama has been a lot more willing to try multilateral strategies, when possible, which is why we 'like' him more. The 'method' matters a great deal.
Romney remains a dark horse foreign policy wise, but so far he hasn't been impressing me with his particular brand of primary season flamethrowing. I understand that it doesn't say a lot about what he'll actually do in office, but the crude view he has of issues like Iran doesn't bode well.
Next to that, I think its particularly ironic point to 'foreigners' as naive, when large parts of american foreign policy discourse, mainly on the republican side, seems to only involve aggressive behavior towards other states. It's hard to find a countries besides the United States, Iran and North-Korea where promising war yields laud applause.
Which tells me so many foreigners are pretty vacuous and petty. It isn't anything to do with our actions, but the fact that we play ball alone. I guess I thought Europeans a bit more principled on the issues of war, but I guess not in a generalized sense. Then again, it's pretty difficult to reconcile the fact that Europeans cheer for the State for everything at home, and then balk at the idea of the State acting internationally at least in terms of the same violence they use at home. Nonetheless, my point remains the same -- nothings changed FP wise and it isn't going to anytime soon since the American electorate thinks the only plausible views range from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney.
You're 'fringe' if you exist outside those parameters.
On April 27 2012 02:48 GhostTK wrote: I hate Mitt Romney. He stands for everythin im against. i really hope he doesn't win. My preferred presidential canidate was Ron Paul, 2 bad he withdrew.
He didn't withdraw, and is in fact, still in the running, despite attempts by the GOP to steal delegates from him
Funny statement considering the Ron Paul compaign was actually the one trying to steal delegates from other candidates at various caucuses, with the RP supporters consistently staying after the vote to get elected to represent the state. If the other candidates had be doing that to Ron Paul, the rage of RP supporters would make every political forum online unreadable.
Face it, Romney doesn't need to "steal" delegates from Ron Paul - he's vastly more popular among the Republican electorate and will win the nomination in a landslide in terms of delegate count.
How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates.
lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama.
Imagine the following scenario: there are 1000 people voting in a caucus with ten delegates to be awarded. 990 of these people vote for Ron Paul, the last ten for Romney. After the 990 people who voted for Ron Paul end up leaving once the voting is over, the 10 people who voted for Romney take the delegate seats, with the intention of giving their votes to Romney - therefore completely nullifying the entire vote that just took place, that was the entire point of the caucus, and which Ron Paul overwhelmingly won. This is pretty much what's going on in some caucuses (or at least what did go on in some places), except Ron Paul was the one profiting from it rather than Romney/Santorum/etc. If this was happening to Ron Paul, his supporters would be OUTRAGED.
Yeah, they'd be outraged at their fellow Ron Paul supporters for not following the process all the way through and staying to represent Ron Paul as a delegate.
Ron Paul supporters are far more dedicated and far more knowledgeable about the election process, unlike supporters of the other candidates. It's preposterous that you're getting upset over people following procedure, but giving the people who breaking rules a pass.
Not necessarily. It's just that since there are more D's and R's than there are Ron Paul supporters, it just seems that way. I'm sure if you got actual numbers, they'd be pretty comparable.
Then again, it'd be hard to quantify the number of people who are "knowledgeable" about the election process anyway.
On April 29 2012 16:09 DannyJ wrote: Uh.... what the hell is up with the pitbull is delicious part!!!!
what's up with it? It was freaking hilarious, that's what. He delivered that line perfectly, I literally laughed for a minute straight. I heard it and then I had to use the bathroom and I was laughing through my entire piss. Comedy gold right there.
EPT
