In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Kizyr » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:45 pm UTC

Falmarri wrote:This. People in other countries don't know or don't care what obama's going to do about capital gains tax, gun control, social security reform, or any of the other policies that could affect us but not affect them. Besides, they see him as the more liberal candidate and that wins him their vote regardless of any actual stance or policy.


Voters typically pick a position they believe will benefit themselves. Anyone outside the country doesn't have to be as concerned about the candidates' stances on domestic policy, since they'll mainly be affected by their stances on trade and foreign policy. I'd fully expect one candidate to have a lead over another; unfortunately, that doesn't say anything about who should be president of this country.

I mean, if I voted in the last French election, I'd probably pick Sarkozy. If I were actually French, maybe I'd've picked Royale. Thing is, considering that I'm not French and I don't have the same context in which to interpret domestic French issues, I don't really have much of a reason to judge who they should or shouldn't elect. ...well, within reason; Le Pen is too far-gone for any sane person to go for.

Iv wrote:In 2002 in the French presidential elections, Jacques Chirac (right wing) was elected by 82.2% of voters aginst Jean-Marie Le Pen (far right). Some commentators went on comparing this election to a US rep vs a US dem. In fact, US republicans would probably fall in the far right end of the political spectrum here.

Oh no, I'd disagree there. The Republicans are nowhere near as awful as the FN. Can you imagine the Republicans running an ad like "Don't let those Mexicans control the vote" and basing their platform on anti-Mexican racism? If someone says they're Republican, I wouldn't lose any respect for them. If someone told me they supported Le Pen, I'd probably try and dissociate myself from them if I could.

The UMP is closer to the US Republicans, though likely further left of them. The Socialists, similarly, are further left of the US Democrats. Although, since not all of the US parties' platforms are straightforward or unified (on account of having a two-party system, if you ask me) there's still much ambiguity. The only one that comes to mind as being close to the FN is Pat Buchanan. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Garm » Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

One problem with our politics here in the U.S. is that we have the two oldest political parties in the world. Sure they've undergone ideological change over the years but the power of entrenchment is not to be understated. The incumbent or incumbent party wins about 80% of the races. With the amount of gerrymandering that's happened since both parties were created there's very little turn over. I think that this is bad for a democracy. Dynasties are (bush/clinton had HRC been elected) are also bad for democracy. I firmly believe that corporate power is bad for democracy and honestly the lobbyists that help run this nation are very responsible for the static nature of our politics.

The sad thing is that currently there's no viable third party alternative. Insofar as political change is concerned Obama is it. He's kinda the real deal if you look at it in terms of what he's done to the party. For years now the party has been run by fuckwits like Mark Penn. Consultants and pollsters who are out of touch with real people but very in touch with corporate needs (Terry MacAuliffe for one). These same people ran Clinton's campaign, ran Gore's campaign into the ground, spent money to scuttle Dean's campaign in 2004 and really ruined Kerry's campaign, showing what old dinosaurs their ideas were. So Obama comes along and he exists outside the ossified party structure. He wins the primary and now the party is his. A lot of the people who have been working in the upper structures of the dem party since Carter are no longer directly involved and I have to say that this is a good thing.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Iv » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:Oh no, I'd disagree there. The Republicans are nowhere near as awful as the FN. Can you imagine the Republicans running an ad like "Don't let those Mexicans control the vote" and basing their platform on anti-Mexican racism? If someone says they're Republican, I wouldn't lose any respect for them. If someone told me they supported Le Pen, I'd probably try and dissociate myself from them if I could.

Racism is an exception to the freedom of speech in France. The FN did not use that in 2002, they talked about security, crime rates, unemployment, waste of public funds by a too big government. Even them do not call their opponents terrorists. You have to go that far on the right end of the spectrum to find people who publicly hold the same ideas as US republicans about guns rights and abortion.

Racism is rampant in FN and used to be its distinctive mark but in 2002 it has slightly changed. I think it is now not very different than the republican party obviously evaluating "Americans life" on a different scale than "regular, foreigners' lives"

Kizor
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: :noitacoL

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Kizor » Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:50 pm UTC

Speaking on behalf of Finland (as I have absolutely no right to do), the country's politics are mostly left of center by the US' metrics, so that gives Obama a boost. He gains a few points more as an underdog bonus; his perceived low odds at surviving a term might affect things, but that's guesswork. He might even benefit from the fact that Republican rhetoric is perceived to claim American ownership of freedom and liberty, and go on and on about how great that makes the country.

I believe that the main reason for McCain's 13% support is his party. For the past eight years we've watched the Bush Administration enact its foreign policy and other policies with international effects, such as environmental and human rights. The US is not a leader of the Free World, that being close to a contradiction in terms, but it is a major trendsetter (wrote he, and switched tabs to add a few more words to a screed against Sweden's legalization of warrantless wiretapping). Domestic US affairs don't get much press, but I'd argue that the average Finn has a clearer view than the average American on issues that do make the Finnish news, since there has there been no effort to sell us the necessity of Guantanamo Bay, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Liberation, no-fly lists, indefinite detentions and torture.

With those things representing Bush, exactly how good is the party associated with him - unfairly at times or not - going to look?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby mosc » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:36 pm UTC

I'm sorry to disagree with most of you here (I agree with Kizor) but I think this is very clearly a result of the past two presidents. Bill Clinton is widely adored in the larger world where George W. Bush is more hated than he is even in the states (and that's a lot if you've been under a rock and missed his 24% "approval" rating). The world largely associates John McCain with George W. Bush and to a lesser extent, Barak Obama with Bill Clinton.

We'll see it more down the road but I think George W. Bush is going to go down as the worst president in the history of the United States, especially internationally. Where past presidents are treasured even in Europe (I would point out that Poland's gaga over Woodrow Wilson for example), Bush is generally the agreed upon face of everything that they dislike in America.

The 2008 election distilled to an outside audience is much more a question of Bush than the two candidates. I would wager the "approval" rating of Bush in each of those countries would be almost exactly lined up with their political leanings today.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Darkscull » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:42 pm UTC

I've just had a thought.

Enough of us forriner's are sure that both the world and the american people would be better off with Obama as president instead of McCain, we could totally just change the regime if the republicans win the election.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with that or anything is there?
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby AtlasDrugged » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:01 pm UTC

What's the point of this thread? We already knew that the world was going ga-ga over Obama, we didn't need somebody to post a Reader's Digest article telling us so.

The main reason is that domestic media doesn't cover candidates' policy in much detail, so people just think 'Obama = HOPE, McCain = BUSH derf derf'

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:07 pm UTC

Darkscull wrote:I've just had a thought.

Enough of us forriner's are sure that both the world and the american people would be better off with Obama as president instead of McCain, we could totally just change the regime if the republicans win the election.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with that or anything is there?


hahahahahahahahah (no seriously please do)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby ddxxdd » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:26 pm UTC

Darkscull wrote:I've just had a thought.

Enough of us forriner's are sure that both the world and the american people would be better off with Obama as president instead of McCain, we could totally just change the regime if the republicans win the election.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with that or anything is there?

You wouldn't be able to. That's the trouble with being so far left ideologically. :-)
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Belial » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:07 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:McCain = BUSH derf derf'


Y'see, it sounds like you're implying that's inaccurate....
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Darkscull » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:11 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:
Darkscull wrote:I've just had a thought.

Enough of us forriner's are sure that both the world and the american people would be better off with Obama as president instead of McCain, we could totally just change the regime if the republicans win the election.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with that or anything is there?

You wouldn't be able to. That's the trouble with being so far left ideologically. :-)


well 'regime change' is just a label anyway, so we'll call it a revolution.
we just happen to be giving the proletariat a headstart from the outside.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

User avatar
Haistfu
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:11 pm UTC
Location: N/A

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Haistfu » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:What's the point of this thread? We already knew that the world was going ga-ga over Obama, we didn't need somebody to post a Reader's Digest article telling us so.

Sounds like somebody pro-Cain who is jealous of positive exposure :)

The main reason is that domestic media doesn't cover candidates' policy in much detail, so people just think 'Obama = HOPE, McCain = BUSH derf derf'

People don't 'just think' that. In fact I'd have to say that you're bias portrays something very close to the opposite of what some people think. There's a whole spectrum of image gleaned from media, and none is present throughout all 'people'.
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Garm » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:07 pm UTC

I don't think that people think McCain = Bush durf durf. I do think that a lot of people think that McCain Policy = Bush Policy (or worse) or they think that McCain used to be a honorable, sensible centrist who has started running a shameful campaign that relies mostly on lies and character attacks.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby AtlasDrugged » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

I wish I could say I was pro-McCain... I just happen to think he's the least bad of two bad options.

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby seladore » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:52 pm UTC

Out of interest, why? I've had very little opportunity to hear from someone preferring McCain.

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Game_boy » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:34 pm UTC

I just like to let you know that the UK Conservative Party, our "right" party, roughly aligns with the Democratic agenda. So, everyone who would vote for the UK Conserbvative Party or more left (i.e. Labour, Liberal Democrats, and fringe socialist parties) would tend to vote Democrat as it's the leftmost option. Therefore it is plausible that Obama would get >90% of the UK vote, because the number of people who would be further right than our Conservatives is about 2% and that's the only sort of person who would go for your Republicans.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:31 am UTC

Game_boy wrote:I just like to let you know that the UK Conservative Party, our "right" party, roughly aligns with the Democratic agenda. So, everyone who would vote for the UK Conserbvative Party or more left (i.e. Labour, Liberal Democrats, and fringe socialist parties) would tend to vote Democrat as it's the leftmost option. Therefore it is plausible that Obama would get >90% of the UK vote, because the number of people who would be further right than our Conservatives is about 2% and that's the only sort of person who would go for your Republicans.

Which is pretty much true of the rest of the world, too.

Our major right-wing party, National, is a lot more like the Democrats than the Republicans, and our major "left-wing" party (more like centrist party, as of recent decades), Labour, would be branded commie bastards and burned at the stake in America (unfortunately they aren't commie bastards, for the record). I guess the 3 percent of people who vote ACT would be the only Republican voters in New Zealand.

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby pollywog » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:10 am UTC

And the 200 or so who vote for Destiny. And National is also more centrist. Is there a New Zealand election thread?

*e* Apparently not, but there wouldn't be much point, would there.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:34 am UTC

National likes to appear centrist.

<.<

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby pollywog » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:33 am UTC

Ahhh, true.

So who will you vote for: Labour, or the Exclusive Bretheren?
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
LeopoldBloom
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:24 am UTC
Location: Waitaks

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby LeopoldBloom » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:14 am UTC

And the 200 or so who vote for Destiny

People actually vote for destiny?
Holy Crap! i'v always assumed it was a joke party; like that raving monster loony party in the U.K


Our major right-wing party, National, is a lot more like the Democrats than the Republicans, and our major "left-wing" party (more like centrist party, as of recent decades), Labour, would be branded commie bastards and burned at the stake in America (unfortunately they aren't commie bastards, for the record). I guess the 3 percent of people who vote ACT would be the only Republican voters in New Zealand.


With regards to national- I think they may be a little more right-wing then the labour-light impression ther'ye doing suggests. Labour would be seen as red extremists and the god knows what our greens would be seen as.
Act voters would support the fiscal consevatives but I think a number would balk at the republicans social agenda.

Is there a New Zealand election thread?

*e* Apparently not, but there wouldn't be much point, would there.

It almost seems worth starting one, more interest then I would expect regarding a minor election in a small country in an U.S centred forum. Its Great :) .
Nuke the Gay Islamic Whales for Jesus!!!!!

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby dubsola » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:02 pm UTC

Falmarri wrote:Which is basically my point. But if you asked anyone from that survey to name certain policies obama holds, they'd be hard pressed to name 1 except for general classically liberal ideas that any liberal might support.

Well, I can name a bunch of policies that Obama holds which I agree with. Not all of them are 'classically liberal' (whatever that means). And apart from policies, Obama being voted in would go a long way towards convincing the rest of the world that America is not as racist as it seems.

*reads rest of thread*, ah, I see other people have already answered this. You do realise that the news outside the US occasionally covers what happens in the US? The converse is not true, obviously.

Falmarri wrote:Fix'd. This is why democracy doesn't work. It's a binary system and you can't help but simplify each candidate's views to find the lesser of 2 evils.

Wrong. After voting, you are still allowed to contact the incumbent and describe your distaste or agreement with whatever they are voting on, or what they have already voted for. Why wait for the ballot box to let your politician know what you think?

Palin (we're really really scared of her)

Yes. Picture this: you're talking with someone about her, and say 'She likes to shoot things from a helicopter'... and just look at each other and shake heads. Nothing needs to be said, really. I just have this mental image of her flying over some city in the Ay-rab terr'try, strapped in to a machine gun, shooting people with towels on their head and screeching 'Yee-HA!'

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby TheStranger » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:21 pm UTC

Considering that the president of the US's job is to look out for the interests of people in the US I don't see how this opinion is "that" important. When I vote I look to a candidate who will represent my interests, not those of someone from another country (which makes high marks from other countries something of a negative in my book).

reads rest of thread*, ah, I see other people have already answered this. You do realise that the news outside the US occasionally covers what happens in the US? The converse is not true, obviously.


I think that you'll find that the US news covers what occurs outside of the US just as often as other countries (maybe a bit less... but then the US is huge and it takes a while to cover what needs to be covered).

Yes. Picture this: you're talking with someone about her, and say 'She likes to shoot things from a helicopter'... and just look at each other and shake heads. Nothing needs to be said, really. I just have this mental image of her flying over some city in the Ay-rab terr'try, strapped in to a machine gun, shooting people with towels on their head and screeching 'Yee-HA!'


A rather inaccurate image. 'shooting things from a helicopter' is talking about hunting in Alaska, specifically the thinning of herd animals.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby cypherspace » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

Falmarri wrote:
The Spherical Cow wrote:Because it's easier to simplify a leader's position if you're not going to be affected by every minutiae of their policies


This. People in other countries don't know or don't care what obama's going to do about capital gains tax, gun control, social security reform, or any of the other policies that could affect us but not affect them. Besides, they see him as the more liberal candidate and that wins him their vote regardless of any actual stance or policy.

It's got nothing to do with that, really. The Republicans chose a candidate that would gain a competitive level of support against the Democrat candidate. There's no point choosing a candidate that won't have that level. The system will inevitably produce relatively close races because each party will choose according to the other party. Since no-one in other countries can vote, the Republicans had no interest in choosing a candidate that appeases the rest of the world, only the US voting public. Had the US voting public had an outlook similar to the European countries, the Republicans would have chosen a different candidate to gain a better share of the vote. The race would be close no matter which country it was held in because inevitably parties will change leaders that are not garnering the voting public's support.

Considering that the president of the US's job is to look out for the interests of people in the US I don't see how this opinion is "that" important. When I vote I look to a candidate who will represent my interests, not those of someone from another country (which makes high marks from other countries something of a negative in my book).
So you don't think the interests of the people in the US are best served by having the final say in world economic policies or by being the most powerful nation in the world? Global issues affect the US and the US affects global issues. Certainly vote for the candidate who represents your interests, but you should recognise that those interests have international ramifications and therefore other people will have an opinion on them. The idea that it's good to alienate the world seems pretty stupid to me.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby dubsola » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:05 pm UTC

TheStranger wrote:A rather inaccurate image. 'shooting things from a helicopter' is talking about hunting in Alaska, specifically the thinning of herd animals.

I didn't realise that the wolves were endangering the moose and caribou populations, I thought they did it for fun. My mistake.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby TheStranger » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:26 pm UTC

cypherspace wrote:So you don't think the interests of the people in the US are best served by having the final say in world economic policies or by being the most powerful nation in the world? Global issues affect the US and the US affects global issues. Certainly vote for the candidate who represents your interests, but you should recognize that those interests have international ramifications and therefore other people will have an opinion on them. The idea that it's good to alienate the world seems pretty stupid to me.


I think that the economic and military position of the US will stand on it's own, without regard for the opinions of the popular opinion of other countries are.

I'm very well aware that the decisions made by the US have global ramifications (September should have served to clear up that point for anyone still on the fence)... and a Presidents global standing is important. That does not mean that the President should be loved.

I don't really see what a politician can say to people who are outside his constituency, aside from "hey, I won't attack you or otherwise mess around in your stuff" or "I'll work with you to solve our shared problems". Beyond that there isn't much that someone who has yet to be elected can say to a foreign nation.

dubsola wrote:I didn't realise that the wolves were endangering the moose and caribou populations, I thought they did it for fun. My mistake.


Wolves hunt to eat, but if I recall correctly the wolf population is not large enough to keep the moose / caribou population in check... thus people go in to thin out the herds.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby iop » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:04 pm UTC

TheStranger wrote:Considering that the president of the US's job is to look out for the interests of people in the US I don't see how this opinion is "that" important. When I vote I look to a candidate who will represent my interests, not those of someone from another country (which makes high marks from other countries something of a negative in my book).

To the best of my knowledge, all US presidents so far have looked after the interest of the people in the US first of all. However, this can be achieved with or without alienating the rest of the world. If the rest of the world likes the president, his job will be easier. For example, if President Bush had not alienated "old Europe" when going to war in Iraq, "old Europe" may have contributed to the rebuilding efforts. As it stands, it is almost exclusively the US taxpayers who are paying.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

TheStranger wrote:Wolves hunt to eat, but if I recall correctly the wolf population is not large enough to keep the moose / caribou population in check... thus people go in to thin out the herds.

No, you've got it backwards. The Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972 outlawed shooting animals from aircraft, and has a loophole allowing state employees to use aircraft for the purpose of protecting wildlife. Palin has tried to get the state to actually pay cash bounty for killing wolves, because in some areas of the state the wolves are taking down too much game and not leaving enough for Alaskans to hunt without endangering the moose or caribou population.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

stapleface
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:38 am UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby stapleface » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:11 pm UTC

Image

It looks like a bunch of economists are trying to weaken the US too. Seriously people, the countries on that list weren't North Korea or Iran, they all have nothing to gain from a lacklustre US economy or military. Obama rates highly because most of the developed world votes for intelligent liberals, and because Bush ruined republican credibility.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:44 pm UTC

The upper-right chart adds up to more than 100%...

EDIT: Oh. No, it doesn't.
Last edited by Bakemaster on Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
The Spherical Cow
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:10 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby The Spherical Cow » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:53 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:The upper-right chart adds up to more than 100%...
I don't think it does?

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby TheStranger » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:06 pm UTC

iop wrote:To the best of my knowledge, all US presidents so far have looked after the interest of the people in the US first of all. However, this can be achieved with or without alienating the rest of the world. If the rest of the world likes the president, his job will be easier. For example, if President Bush had not alienated "old Europe" when going to war in Iraq, "old Europe" may have contributed to the rebuilding efforts. As it stands, it is almost exclusively the US taxpayers who are paying.


My point is that a presidential candidate being very popular over seas is either a minor point, or an indication that his foreign policy may be to giving. I never stated, or implied that the president should alienate allies, only that cheering masses in Paris is not an indicator of how fit a candidate is when it comes to running the US.

Bakemaster wrote:No, you've got it backwards. The Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972 outlawed shooting animals from aircraft, and has a loophole allowing state employees to use aircraft for the purpose of protecting wildlife. Palin has tried to get the state to actually pay cash bounty for killing wolves, because in some areas of the state the wolves are taking down too much game and not leaving enough for Alaskans to hunt without endangering the moose or caribou population.


Some areas or all areas? I'm not an Alaskian resident (and I don't hunt) so I'm not completely up to speed on the relevant regulations.

It was more about Palin not shooting people then the fine intricacies of hunting regulations.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Kizyr » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:31 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:The upper-right chart adds up to more than 100%...


Um... 80% + 16% = 96%

Having read that same article, it should be noted that even for economists who identified themselves as Independent, the tilt is still in favor of Obama (something like 56% if I recall). Although I'm surprised that the number of economists who identify themselves as Republicans is so small. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Intercept » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:10 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:
Bakemaster wrote:The upper-right chart adds up to more than 100%...


Um... 80% + 16% = 96%

Having read that same article, it should be noted that even for economists who identified themselves as Independent, the tilt is still in favor of Obama (something like 56% if I recall). Although I'm surprised that the number of economists who identify themselves as Republicans is so small. KF


Yes, one thing I wondered about that poll is if most economists are liberals because they're economists or if liberals just tend to go into the field more. I'm inclined to believe the former.

Also, what our allied nations think of is very important and helpful.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

Falmarri
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:21 am UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Falmarri » Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:31 pm UTC

dubsola wrote:And apart from policies, Obama being voted in would go a long way towards convincing the rest of the world that America is not as racist as it seems.


Umm, what? So if we elect a white candidate, we're racist. If we elect a black candidate, we're less racist? How do you get that? Also, if the biggest effect of the electing obama is to "show the rest of the world that we're civilized", I think that just made me vote for McCain.

Wrong. After voting, you are still allowed to contact the incumbent and describe your distaste or agreement with whatever they are voting on, or what they have already voted for. Why wait for the ballot box to let your politician know what you think?


Because it won't do any good?

Yes. Picture this: you're talking with someone about her, and say 'She likes to shoot things from a helicopter'... and just look at each other and shake heads. Nothing needs to be said, really. I just have this mental image of her flying over some city in the Ay-rab terr'try, strapped in to a machine gun, shooting people with towels on their head and screeching 'Yee-HA!'


So saying she shot something out of an helicopter is supposed to be some kind of argument for or against something? How about "she used taxpayer money to shoot a wolf out of a helicopter." Or "she's corrupt in this way because she shot something out of a helicopter." Or "she illegally shot something out of a helicopter because she broke this law." How is shooting something out of a helicopter inherently bad?

Kizor
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: :noitacoL

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Kizor » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:06 am UTC

I believe dubsola says that the election of a black president would be rather strong proof of a lack of racism. The election of a white president wouldn't prove much one way or the other.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby clintonius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:08 am UTC

Falmarri wrote:
dubsola wrote:And apart from policies, Obama being voted in would go a long way towards convincing the rest of the world that America is not as racist as it seems.
Umm, what? So if we elect a white candidate, we're racist. If we elect a black candidate, we're less racist? How do you get that? Also, if the biggest effect of the electing obama is to "show the rest of the world that we're civilized", I think that just made me vote for McCain.
No no -- nowhere did anybody say that voting for a white candidate makes us racist. For obvious reasons, America holds a reputation as being less than welcoming toward brown people. Electing Obama may seem to other nations to indicate a shift in the wind.
Falmarri wrote:
dubsola wrote:Wrong. After voting, you are still allowed to contact the incumbent and describe your distaste or agreement with whatever they are voting on, or what they have already voted for. Why wait for the ballot box to let your politician know what you think?
Because it won't do any good?
Your ignorance of the American political system is depressing, though I suppose there's always the hope that you'll realize how wrong you are and either learn something or stop talking. Voting does nothing but express your preference for one candidate over another. Getting in touch with your representative 1) has the potential to be more directly tied to a specific policy decision you are concerned about, and 2) actually works. The House Republicans would have passed the bailout bill the first time around had their constituents not been shitting their pants about it. You have more say in policy with a letter than you do with a vote.
Falmarri wrote:
dubsola wrote:Yes. Picture this: you're talking with someone about her, and say 'She likes to shoot things from a helicopter'... and just look at each other and shake heads. Nothing needs to be said, really. I just have this mental image of her flying over some city in the Ay-rab terr'try, strapped in to a machine gun, shooting people with towels on their head and screeching 'Yee-HA!'
So saying she shot something out of an helicopter is supposed to be some kind of argument for or against something? How about "she used taxpayer money to shoot a wolf out of a helicopter." Or "she's corrupt in this way because she shot something out of a helicopter." Or "she illegally shot something out of a helicopter because she broke this law." How is shooting something out of a helicopter inherently bad?
Not sure I know how to defend this with words. In dubsola's opinion, "nothing needs to be said," and I'm inclined to agree with him. If you're not a big scared of a vp candidate who enjoys taking up a sniper rifle and picking off wolves from a chopper, I dunno what to tell you.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

Falmarri
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:21 am UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Falmarri » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:40 am UTC

clintonius wrote:Your ignorance of the American political system is depressing, though I suppose there's always the hope that you'll realize how wrong you are and either learn something or stop talking. Voting does nothing but express your preference for one candidate over another. Getting in touch with your representative 1) has the potential to be more directly tied to a specific policy decision you are concerned about, and 2) actually works. The House Republicans would have passed the bailout bill the first time around had their constituents not been shitting their pants about it. You have more say in policy with a letter than you do with a vote.


Sure, that helps, I assumed we were talking specifically about the president.

clintonius wrote:Not sure I know how to defend this with words. In dubsola's opinion, "nothing needs to be said," and I'm inclined to agree with him. If you're not a big scared of a vp candidate who enjoys taking up a sniper rifle and picking off wolves from a chopper, I dunno what to tell you.


Why would that scare you? Hitting a moving target from a helicopter would take tremendous shooting skill. I think it would be awesome to get a chance to test my marksmanship in that way. Aren't there plenty of other, legitimate things to criticize palin for?

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby clintonius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:57 am UTC

Falmarri wrote:
clintonius wrote:Not sure I know how to defend this with words. In dubsola's opinion, "nothing needs to be said," and I'm inclined to agree with him. If you're not a big scared of a vp candidate who enjoys taking up a sniper rifle and picking off wolves from a chopper, I dunno what to tell you.
Why would that scare you? Hitting a moving target from a helicopter would take tremendous shooting skill. I think it would be awesome to get a chance to test my marksmanship in that way. Aren't there plenty of other, legitimate things to criticize palin for?
Yes. And they've been done to death. It's not the marksmanship we're criticizing. We're critical of a lifestyle that sees badassery in things like shooting creatures from flying vehicles. We're critical of the idea that such a person could potentially wield tremendous political influence, because there's already quite enough of this bullshit notion that America is about redneck ideals, and we don't need someone sitting in the vp spot picking up at the level George W left off in terms of cowboy ethics.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

Falmarri
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:21 am UTC

Re: In the World's Eye...Obama wins? (Reader's Digest)

Postby Falmarri » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:05 am UTC

clintonius wrote:
Falmarri wrote:
clintonius wrote:Not sure I know how to defend this with words. In dubsola's opinion, "nothing needs to be said," and I'm inclined to agree with him. If you're not a big scared of a vp candidate who enjoys taking up a sniper rifle and picking off wolves from a chopper, I dunno what to tell you.
Why would that scare you? Hitting a moving target from a helicopter would take tremendous shooting skill. I think it would be awesome to get a chance to test my marksmanship in that way. Aren't there plenty of other, legitimate things to criticize palin for?
Yes. And they've been done to death. It's not the marksmanship we're criticizing. We're critical of a lifestyle that sees badassery in things like shooting creatures from flying vehicles. We're critical of the idea that such a person could potentially wield tremendous political influence, because there's already quite enough of this bullshit notion that America is about redneck ideals, and we don't need someone sitting in the vp spot picking up at the level George W left off in terms of cowboy ethics.


I can see this if she had been bragging about shooting shit from a helicopter (she might have, I don't know). But the simple fact of her having shot something from a helicopter? I just don't get why that's bad in and of itself. Is it the fault of the person who enjoys shooting that people who know nothing of guns or marksmanship think every instance of anyone using a gun means it's redneck, or cowboy ethics, or whatever.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests