Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently November 20th, 2017, 2:28 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2008, 3:03 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Some people still are not understanding my point. You can talk about worldwide affairs all you want but ultimately what people care about when to go to the polls is the state of domestic affairs in the the state of affairs of fellow citizens. And I'm not just specially referring to the U.S. either.

Why is Iraq considered a major issue in the 2008 election? Obviously it's because it involves a U.S. interest and U.S. soldiers. If it didn't, it wouldn't be such an important issue. And yet despite this, I'm betting that far more people are going to the polls thinking about their own jobs, the economy, taxes, healthcare or the state of the country's education system far more than foreign policy. This is true for other nations as well, not just the US. Denying this is just naive. (For instance, no matter how good a candidates proposal may be to end the Iraq war, if that candidate's platform also involves major tax hikes, then he has little chance of getting elected.)

Again, I don't like being blunt, but that's just how things are. It has nothing to do with being "close minded" (another convenient label people like to use) it has to do with stating realities. Idealism has it's place, just not in real-life affairs. Not to mention this is a discussion about the 2008 US Presidential election, and the most important issues to any U.S. citizen during an election are domestic ones, not foreign ones. Does that make voters "close-minded?" Maybe, but I have a feeling that an unemployed person on welfare cares little about how the war is going in Iraq (well the political aspects of it at least).

Anyway, here's another interesting thing about the whole Hillary vs. Obama matter. If Hillary gets the nomination, her best choice as vice-president would obviously be Obama (this of course is not true vice versa). Yet for Obama, accepting that role would be the worst move he could make for his political career since if Hillary is elected than the he would essentially be the odd man out. We all know that the number one adviser in that White House is going to be Bill. Thus it's in Obama's best interest to deny the offer to be Hillary's running mate if she gets the nomination. Not only that but he should make it known to the public somehow that he was made the offer but denied it.

Another funny thing is that Huckabee would probably be the best running mate for McCain since he has beaten McCain in every southern state so far in the primaries. Of course, politically it's never going to happen, but it's ironic that a McCain/Huckabee campaign for presidency would probably be one of the strongest bids the Republicans could make for the 2008 election (McCain has stronger appeal to the middle, while Huckabee has a stronger appeal to the conservatives).

zero_chaos wrote:
Hillary is always having issues. She fired her Manager(I think, it might have been someone else important) a little while ago. Guess she was pissed she didn't win enough states on Super Tuesday.

True, but her biggest "issue" is that fact that her last name is Clinton. :lol:

42317 wrote:
The US point out that they fight for peace and democracy, consequently making the world safer vor everyone.
But what many or even most people believe is that the US are fighting only for their own national and economic security, at all costs, with the spread of western-style democracy as a side benefit,


That would make sense . . . except that the Iraq war is costing the US far more money than any economic benefits of the war could match. Another reason why people calling the Iraq war a war for "oil" lack common sense.

42317 wrote:
and it does not help that, right after WWII, a highranking US officer was quoted saying:
[i]"It is not our task to make the world safe for democracy, but to make the world safe for the United States."

And why is this a problem? The primary reason that nation's fight wars is for their own national security. When a nation's national security is threatened (in the case of WWII, a direct threat), the logical response is to go to war (unless you're a pacifist, which if you are, you have far bigger problems to solve)

42317 wrote:
The fact that the US backed the most repressive and cruellest regimes in Latin America and elsewhere, just because they were against communism, is not yet forgotten, along with the greatest bigotry of them all: The Iran-Contra Affair.

That has to do with the question of when stability is more important than democracy. It is clear that in certain instances, democracy can have a greater destabilizing and detrimental effect on a nation's well being than totalitarianism. Just look at Russia. Many Russians today are still split about the idea of having a stable and prosperous country AND having the civil or human rights that may claim Russia does not have.

42317 wrote:
Of course, global policy is far more complicated, and administrations change all the time, but the human mind is made for categorizations - THE Americans, THE Russians, THE Germans, THE Chinese, THE politicians, THE communists, and so on, like these groups were beyond any individuality.

And ironically, many foreigners fall into the same trap with their anti-American rhetoric.

_________________
Image
Image


Last edited by spazmaster666 on February 11th, 2008, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2008, 3:28 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Some people still are not understanding my point. You can talk about worldwide affairs all you want but ultimately what people care about when to go to the polls is the state of domestic affairs in the the state of affairs of fellow citizens.


So care to explain to me why half the "issues" on Huckabee page are foreign policies/war related, and at least 1/3 of "issues" on any other candidates also are? PERHAPS they are more aware that as the leading nation, the president of US also have to give good points on their foreign policy. For instance, Bush is letting domestics affairs whitter BECAUSE he is too busy expending so much in his "war of terror". Isn't it important for an American, while choosing the candidate, to know he/she will not keep wasting too much outside and look more for inside? Your whole point actually proves the importance of foreign affairs to a candidate! I wouldn't vote for a candidate who expends too much time saying how he will handle foreign policies and give just a word or two on the domestic economy, don't you think?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2008, 3:36 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
So care to explain to me why half the "issues" on Huckabee page are foreign policies/war related, and at least 1/3 of "issues" on any other candidates also are? PERHAPS they are more aware that as the leading nation, the president of US also have to give good points on their foreign policy.

Again you are not reading what I am saying. I'm not talking about the candidate's platforms, but what most voters actually care about when they go to their polls. Even if a candidate's platform is 90% foreign policy and 10% domestic policy, the voters will still vote mostly depending on that 10%.

Caiobrz wrote:
For instance, Bush is letting domestics affairs whitter BECAUSE he is too busy expending so much in his "war of terror".

I never said I was a fan of Bush's domestic policies.

Caiobrz wrote:
Isn't it important for an American, while choosing the candidate, to know he/she will not keep wasting too much outside and look more for inside? Your whole point actually proves the importance of foreign affairs to a candidate! I wouldn't vote for a candidate who expends too much time saying how he will handle foreign policies and give just a word or two on the domestic economy, don't you think?

No my point is about how voter's determine which candidates they vote for, not about how important foreign policy is to any particular candidates.

Of course it obviously makes sense to talk about "global politics" and then focus as the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Okay, I guess I'll go crawl back into my box again.

P.S. For the record, I'm a Canadian citizen, not a U.S. citizen. ;) Well, I'm probably also considered a citizen of the P.R.C.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2008, 5:28 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
spazmaster666 wrote:
what people care about when to go to the polls is the state of domestic affairs in the the state of affairs of fellow citizens.

I was told by US Americans, one from New York and the other from South Carolina, that citizens in general consider the US federal government a group of strange people who take themselves a little too serious, while usually people are only interested in things concerning their very own state... :lol:


spazmaster666 wrote:
The primary reason that nation's fight wars is for their own national security.

Of course, that's global policy practice. That's how things are.
But the matter becomes not just a little stupid when all you hear is "We fight for democracy, for YOUR freedom and for YOUR rights!" when anybody with decent brains in his/her skull knows it's about economical and security issues. I find it disappointing, and if usual folks (anywhere) were not so dense and short-sighted I'd even say it was offensive.


spazmaster666 wrote:
For the record, I'm a Canadian citizen, not a U.S. citizen.

What!? I thought you were Texan?

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 12th, 2008, 12:36 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
42317 wrote:
What!? I thought you were Texan?

I am but I'm not a US citizen. I have a green card of course but it'll be a few more years before I get naturalized. (I lived in Canada for several years which is why I am a Canadian citizen. Way back of course I lived in China, where I was born)

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 12th, 2008, 3:53 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
spazmaster666 wrote:
I never said I was a fan of Bush's domestic policies.


I know that, I think most Americans aren't anyway, but that just goes along to say that I think even Americans note that Bush went wrong because he spends too much on foreign, thus, a smart voter who wants to have things solved domestically, would probably want a candidate that does not loose too much time on foreign issues but rather domestic issues.

We both agree voters want better domestic policy, but all I'm saying is: either this or that, thus, either focus on domestic policy or foreign policy. If a candidate focus too much on foreign, you know he is not right for your domestic hopes, don't you think? As you said, it's not important US policy on Iraq, Israel, Iran or Yadda Yadda when it comes to HEALTH CARE or VETERANS or IMMIGRATION, so why bother? candidates bothering too mich with Iraq/Israel/Iran/Terror will probably neglect domestic issues. Thus, my point.

We agree, just don't agree on how to agree :roll:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 12th, 2008, 7:44 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Caiobrz wrote:
a smart voter who wants to have things solved domestically, would probably want a candidate that does not loose too much time on foreign issues but rather domestic issues.

I think the purpose of major foreign policy issues on campaign platforms is to display strength and grit. The Democrats have more diplomatic foreign agendas, that's why people think they had no teeth, and that's how they lose many swing voters imho.
Showing a strong international stand is part of the legend they lived in the single most perfect country on the face of the planet. "Vote for me! We are powerful! See how I will let the puppets dance!" :D Like domestic issues show (recession,veteran suicides, crime rates, political polarization of voters, whatever), that notion is a misconception, but many don't seem to notice the gap. Before the election and after the election always seem like different realities.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2008, 12:54 am 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
42317 wrote:
Showing a strong international stand is part of the legend they lived in the single most perfect country on the face of the planet. "Vote for me! We are powerful! See how I will let the puppets dance!" :D Like domestic issues show (recession,veteran suicides, crime rates, political polarization of voters, whatever), that notion is a misconception, but many don't seem to notice the gap. Before the election and after the election always seem like different realities.

Interesting. So having crime, a recession, some combination of problems means you can't be the "most perfect" country? I guess that precludes every single country then. Since every country is going to have problems of it's own. But then to find the best, or most perfect, you would have to decide what aspects you are going to analyze, their respective weights, and compare that between all countries. A pointless, ridiculous and subjective endeavor to be sure. Every person is going to care about something differently and have different beliefs in what makes a country the best. I'm not saying the US is the most perfect, just saying no one actually has any idea nor will anyone ever have any idea since it's too subjective and will be judged by a different set of criteria by everyone.

I could say I am the most handsome man in the world. Some may agree, some may not :evil:. But to say I can't be the most handsome because I have a nose? (Something everyone is going to have). To say the people who find me handsome are wrong because I am not handsome by your standards?

It's too subjective and too impossible to actually figure out.

Edit: Clarified the last part in case people didn't get why I said "because I have a nose."

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Last edited by Acmurphy on February 13th, 2008, 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2008, 2:16 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
I actually agree with 42317, having too much internatiol stand and foreing policies as a candidate or as a country comes a long way to say "hey, we are perfect so let's worry about the rest of the world". NO I'm not implying that's who Americans think, I just think that indeed the candidates should focus more in their regional problems and issues, like AcMurphy mentioned: crime, recession, health etc... which are also present in their campaings but sometimes they seam to be in the background o.O;

I don't find the Democrats having a stronger display of foreign policies in their platforms ... as I mentioned, if you check the republican's site's issues, there are a lot more foreing issues than in Obama or Hillary's. Huckabee's for instance has more than half his 'issues' as foreign agenda as if the internal problems are non-existent.

Either way all have a fair amound of worry on explaining to voters how to deal with their foreing policy. Too much ... I think just about how they will handle Iraq is fine, the rest is secondary if compared to local issues don't you think?

That's also why I agree with Spaz and AcMurphy: voters worry about their local issues, not about a country in the other side of the world, why the heck do the candidates put so much effort into explaining how they will deal with that?

Anyway, in a newspaper today, analists said it's pretty much "settled" that the Republican candidate will be McCain though Huckabee got some good prospects latelly, while the Democrat side is less defined but "seams" Obama has the edge. They also mentioned that what is holding Hillary in the race is the Clinton in her name, and how Americans recall the good 8 years of her husband's government. As 42317 mentioned on an earlier post, it still amazes me people saying that "Clinton" is a problem, while seams it helps her.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2008, 6:00 am 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
Caiobrz wrote:
why the heck do the candidates put so much effort into explaining how they will deal with that? (Foreign Stuff)

They might just want to be making sure people realize that they do have an eye on the rest of the world and know, or have an idea, of how they will try and deal with possible conflicts with NK and Iran, the continuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whatever else is on the plate of the world stage. Local issues may have more of an impact on the people, their daily lives, and how they ultimately vote, but they may like to have the reassurance that the candidate has a plan foreign policy with some sort of substance to it.

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2008, 1:26 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Acmurphy wrote:
So having crime, a recession, some combination of problems means you can't be the "most perfect" country?

There is no perfection in such complicated matters as states and their people.
Socialist Utopia will never come. :lol:

Acmurphy wrote:
I guess that precludes every single country then.

That is correct.

Acmurphy wrote:
to find the best, or most perfect, you would have to decide what aspects you are going to analyze, their respective weights, and compare that between all countries. A pointless, ridiculous and subjective endeavor to be sure.

Right again.

Acmurphy wrote:
to say I can't be the most handsome because I have a nose?
(Something everyone is going to have).

I'd rather have chosen a real type of flaw, like a psychological one.
Everybody has some defect in his mind. The most handsome man in the world might still be a racist, and the most brilliant chessplayer might still be a lazy slob who lives in filth.

Acmurphy wrote:
To say the people who find me handsome are wrong because I am not handsome by your standards?

You being handsome does not affect other people's lives. Looking individually good does not give you the idea (nor the right) to go over to your neighbor and improve his own sub-standard looks without his consent, even if you can smell his laundry bag across the yard... :lol:

Caiobrz wrote:
candidates should focus more in their regional problems and issues, like AcMurphy mentioned: crime, recession, health etc...

Actually I'm guilty of entering these terms in the first place.
Those were just examples I picked up during my reading US news these days. People living there will actually know better examples.

Caiobrz wrote:
it still amazes me people saying that "Clinton" is a problem, while seams it helps her.

I admit it depends on the political side the speaker takes. I'm a military.com forum lurker, and that board is so full of conservatives I could puke reading their comments concerning the "clash of cultures", to name it politely. If given the chance, many of those idiots would go ahead and execute a Muslim holocaust, despite the many great values that the US stands for - only on paper? I guess not, but sometimes I'm shocked.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2008, 9:23 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
42317 wrote:
Acmurphy wrote:
to say I can't be the most handsome because I have a nose?
(Something everyone is going to have).

I'd rather have chosen a real type of flaw, like a psychological one.
Everybody has some defect in his mind. The most handsome man in the world might still be a racist, and the most brilliant chessplayer might still be a lazy slob who lives in filth.

If I could have thought of a human wide flaw I would have used it, but I couldn't. Everyone has a nose though, just like how every country has crime. That's the only point I was trying to make there.

42317 wrote:
Acmurphy wrote:
To say the people who find me handsome are wrong because I am not handsome by your standards?

You being handsome does not affect other people's lives. Looking individually good does not give you the idea (nor the right) to go over to your neighbor and improve his own sub-standard looks without his consent, even if you can smell his laundry bag across the yard... :lol:

This is certainly true, it does not affect other people's lives. I'm not sure what your comment is getting at though. Ya, if I do something to someone for no reason, I don't have the right. I can't just go shoot some guy because I don't like how he looks. It gets a lot more complicated when you get into the reasons, as real life events are usually going to have.

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 14th, 2008, 12:39 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
Anyway, in a newspaper today, analists said it's pretty much "settled" that the Republican candidate will be McCain though Huckabee got some good prospects latelly, while the Democrat side is less defined but "seams" Obama has the edge. They also mentioned that what is holding Hillary in the race is the Clinton in her name, and how Americans recall the good 8 years of her husband's government. As 42317 mentioned on an earlier post, it still amazes me people saying that "Clinton" is a problem, while seams it helps her.

The problem is that people remember what happens at the end of a presidency much more than the beginning of a presidency. Clinton was nearly impeached near the end of his presidency and that controversy, as well as the prospects of Bill trying to make a comeback along with the years of strife under the Clinton presidency adds to the baggage Hillary has to bear. We already know that Bill is going to be the number one advisor in the White House if Hillary is elected. The question is whether or not Bill can play the second fiddle to anyone, even to his wife.

Polls have also shown that Hilary is a far more polarizing candidate than Obama.

The other issue is the shear amount of attacks that will most likely be levied against her if she were to get the democratic nomination. Hillary is basically a big red target, whereas there are far fewer things that could be used to attack Obama. Of course I have my own doubts as to Obama's ability to win the general election but at last in his case it would be more of a gentle breeze compared to the giant hurricane of contraversy that will most likely occur if Hillary gets the nod.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 14th, 2008, 6:58 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Acmurphy wrote:
If I could have thought of a human wide flaw I would have used it, but I couldn't.

I was speaking in general terms. Nobody is perfect, therefore everybody has some flaw of sorts.

42317 wrote:
It gets a lot more complicated when you get into the reasons, as real life events are usually going to have.

Right. But the more complicated it gets, the more controversial it will be, whether a form of action against a perceived, but possibly exaggerated, threat is appropriate. Of course, some will insist on quick action due to the perceived danger and ask questions later - or not at all - while others will insist that everything can be solved peacefully. The strong US "pro" on the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq provoked an equally strong "contra", although everybody agrees that Saddam got what he deserved, and the Taliban had lost any moral sympathies from non-extremists when they blew up the giant Buddhas (despite offers to buy and remove them) and videos about official executions in the Kabul stadium were made public.

If you're the most handsome man in the world and you go ahead and tell other people how they could improve their looks although they are happy with their appearance (or maybe they just don't want any interference in their private matters), they might become angry and curse you, but that's small-scale.
On the other hand, if you're the militarily most powerful nation on the planet, whatever strategy you decide on for the better of your own country will affect millions of people abroad, many of whom will not be pleased with the prospects of your plans, and some will just start hating you. You question their values and they go berserk.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: June 28th, 2008, 7:51 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Say, when a US president is elected, is there an "immunity period"? Like, after a month his policy becomes so unpopular that the entire country cries for his/her removal - can he be removed from office immediately?
I'd like to know because the German system has such an immunity phase, I think it's 100 days. During this time, no elected government can be ousted - at least not by democratic means.
(That's another legacy of the so-called Weimar Republic (1919-1933), when political chaos was the norm during times of social hardship and the president would rule by emergency orders, assigning and sacking chancellors as he saw fit in order to please the populace.)

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group