3 ms·

You can pretty much call the election right there gentleman. I don't have any political preference in the matter (I'm an Aussie), but I predict that Republican

by froo 18y ago

You can pretty much call the election right there gentleman. I don't have any political preference in the matter (I'm an Aussie), but I predict that Republican extremists are going to take this and run with it as far as possible. Not only are people going to see the Palin/McCain team as the underdog, because everyone loves an underdog, but they'll also be portrayed as the victim of evil attacks by the democrats (even though it was his son, and I'm sure his son has little political preferences yet) That just sucks and frankly it scares the living shit out of me that someone like Palin could potentially end up being the "leader of the free world" when she has shown some incredibly odd positions over time. EDIT - just adding this in as a clarification incase anyone wants to call this anti-right propaganda (as I saw myself downmodded earlier, if anything I'm anti-noob) I've got no problem whatsoever with McCain being President if his age wasn't a factor. He's earned his right. It's just that there is a growing anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world (I see it all the time in Aus) and it would be a step backwards to have someone like Palin being literally a heartbeat away from the top spot, especially with the absolute mess that it appears Bush has made. You guys need a leader, not a pretty face.

anamax 18y ago
> It's just that there is a growing anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world Of course there is - you feel safe. When that changes, you'll be pro-American again. Yes, we've noticed that when something bad happens, it's always "When will the Americans get here to help?" and (annoyingly often) "Why didn't the US stop {whatever} from happening to us?" Feel free to rely on the Euros instead. Heck, maybe the Chinese or Russians will come through. BTW - Your assumption that Americans should care about how "the world" feels is probably wrong. Yes, I know that you think that we should, but ....
- froo 18y ago
  Wow.. just wow, there is so much I can say about your comment that I'm curious if you're just trolling. I'll answer you anyway. At what point have I ever said (or implied) I was anti-American on this site, or any other site (I use a similar handle on every site, so it can be verified) or for that matter EVER. The answer? Never, because I am simply not anti-American. Your kind of insular attitude proves exactly what I'm saying. EDIT - For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? Why else were the British and the Aussies the first 2 countries to sign up for the coalition on the willing and along with the American and British the only countries that provided significant military presence in the gulf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm) Didn't we also send troops to Afghanistan? Both of these military actions were unpopular in Australia from day zero and both of which hurt trade agreements in the middle east for us (depending on who you talk too, some have suggested it has increased our chances for retaliatory terrorist acts, I simply don't know though), but we went anyway. Also, moving away from military alliances, we only had a change of Government last year so things have changed since but for a while, both the Americans and the Australians were the only 2 countries to have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This was mostly due to Howard wanting to not have the Americans as the only country as not having signed (he was very pro-american). Within a week of a change of government, Rudd had signed and it was well received by the public.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > At what point have I ever said (or implied) I was anti-American on this site My apologies. I didn't intend "you" personally, but the "It's just that there is a growing anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world" (as I quoted). > Your kind of insular attitude proves exactly what I'm saying. Huh? You said that there was a growing anti-American sentiment. While I agree, how does what I said prove that? Or, are you saying that I proved something that you didn't state explicitly? If so, what? > For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? So? Your strongest argument would be that Australians are probably Americans' most popular "not Americans". (Canadians have gone with a curious mix of invisibility and defining themselves as "not American".) And, you seem to take care of them yourselves. However, that doesn't change the fact that much of what the US sees overseas is folks with their hands out. We also see folks screaming about the US "doing it wrong" when they're not doing it at all. Maybe we're incorrect, but I'm talking sentiment, as you did. There is no shortage of problems in the world. Surely some of them can be taken care of by someone else. Rwanda was well within the capabilities of many other countries. Somalia is as well.
    - froo 18y ago
      > Huh? You said that there was a growing anti-American sentiment. While I agree, how does what I said prove that? Well, I'll give an example - theres is/was fairly popular show (I don't watch TV all that much, so I'm unsure of its current status) here in Australia called CNNNN that satirised fox news/cnn. The guys who created it have since gone on to create a tv show called the Chaser's War on Everything" Here's one of the more popular clips from CNNNN entitled "Stupid Americans" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ What I gleamed from your comment was the attitude of "Americans dont need anyone else, fuck the rest of the world" In the above clip, particularly pay attention where they're placing pins in countries that these people want to invade. These people more than likely vote and apart from 2 of them, they don't look like political radicals or crazy people. >> For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? > So? That is the exact attitude I am talking about. Semi related - A little anecdote I thought was absolutely hilarious (but also tragic) at the time was that in the early stages of the Iraq war the media was doing lots of broadcasts from that media center they set up. One of the popular media outlets (I forget which, it was Fox or CNN) had a large map of the world which their reporters stood in front of to make broadcasts. It was just a general outline of continents. They actually removed Australia from the map because it was where the reporters were supposed to stand and it was interfering with the shot. What a fantastic way to treat one of the 2 allies that sent military support :)
mattmaroon 18y ago
Wrong on many accounts. 1) McCain won't even remotely attempt to tie this to Obama. Even despite the recent negative turn, this campaign has been fairly civil. Just as Obama passed on commenting about Palin's daughter's personal troubles, McCain will not blame this on the DNC. (Michelle Malkin might be another story, but she doesn't influence anyone whose vote is up for grabs.) It was the college-age son of some state politician who will probably publish remarks condemning it. That'll pretty much be the end of it. 2) In America, the rich old white male (especially one who doesn't know how many homes he owns) is never seen as the underdog to the young black man, even if he is. 3) Most of our worst leaders weren't noobs. George W had more executive branch experience than anyone currently running, and in his second term (which a lot of historians believe to be the worst in history) he'd already had 4 years of trial under fire as President. A lot of times, experience just deeply ingrains one way of doing things and inhibits the mental flexibility needed for such an intellectual job. (And don't get me wrong, I'm terrified as shit of having her as President, but it's not due to her inexperience).
- netcan 18y ago
  Michelle Malkin might be another story, but she doesn't influence anyone whose vote is up for grabs. I thought in the US system, swinging votes don't really matter. Those fence sitters aren't confident or interested enough to vote anyway. I thought the only thing that mattered was preaching to the choir & getting them to vote at all. Hence scare tactics.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > I thought in the US system, swinging votes don't really matter. Those fence sitters aren't confident or interested enough to vote anyway. I thought the only thing that mattered was preaching to the choir & getting them to vote at all. Not at all. While you don't have a chance if your base doesn't come out, they almost always do. As a result, swing votes typically decide US elections. There are, however, two kinds of swing votes. One always votes, but switches. The other shows up occasionally.
  - astine 18y ago
    Oh no, in the US system the swing voters are the key. There's always some demographic that isn't on either side and it's they whom the parties secretly try to court. In 2004, it was the 'conservative gay.' I'll leave you to guess what that means.
anamax 18y ago
> the victim of evil attacks by the democrats (even though it was his son, and I'm sure his son has little political preferences yet) Why would you be sure of that? In the US, political preference is typically passed down along family lines. While there are exceptions, this is especially true of politican's families. Above the state level, it's fairly common for one or more kids to go into the family biz. (The Kennedys are merely the best known example.)

by froo 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> It's just that there is a growing anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world Of course there is - you feel safe. When that changes, you'll be pro-American again. Yes, we've noticed that when something bad happens, it's always "When will the Americans get here to help?" and (annoyingly often) "Why didn't the US stop {whatever} from happening to us?" Feel free to rely on the Euros instead. Heck, maybe the Chinese or Russians will come through. BTW - Your assumption that Americans should care about how "the world" feels is probably wrong. Yes, I know that you think that we should, but ....

froo 18y ago
Wow.. just wow, there is so much I can say about your comment that I'm curious if you're just trolling. I'll answer you anyway. At what point have I ever said (or implied) I was anti-American on this site, or any other site (I use a similar handle on every site, so it can be verified) or for that matter EVER. The answer? Never, because I am simply not anti-American. Your kind of insular attitude proves exactly what I'm saying. EDIT - For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? Why else were the British and the Aussies the first 2 countries to sign up for the coalition on the willing and along with the American and British the only countries that provided significant military presence in the gulf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm) Didn't we also send troops to Afghanistan? Both of these military actions were unpopular in Australia from day zero and both of which hurt trade agreements in the middle east for us (depending on who you talk too, some have suggested it has increased our chances for retaliatory terrorist acts, I simply don't know though), but we went anyway. Also, moving away from military alliances, we only had a change of Government last year so things have changed since but for a while, both the Americans and the Australians were the only 2 countries to have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This was mostly due to Howard wanting to not have the Americans as the only country as not having signed (he was very pro-american). Within a week of a change of government, Rudd had signed and it was well received by the public.
- anamax 18y ago
  > At what point have I ever said (or implied) I was anti-American on this site My apologies. I didn't intend "you" personally, but the "It's just that there is a growing anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world" (as I quoted). > Your kind of insular attitude proves exactly what I'm saying. Huh? You said that there was a growing anti-American sentiment. While I agree, how does what I said prove that? Or, are you saying that I proved something that you didn't state explicitly? If so, what? > For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? So? Your strongest argument would be that Australians are probably Americans' most popular "not Americans". (Canadians have gone with a curious mix of invisibility and defining themselves as "not American".) And, you seem to take care of them yourselves. However, that doesn't change the fact that much of what the US sees overseas is folks with their hands out. We also see folks screaming about the US "doing it wrong" when they're not doing it at all. Maybe we're incorrect, but I'm talking sentiment, as you did. There is no shortage of problems in the world. Surely some of them can be taken care of by someone else. Rwanda was well within the capabilities of many other countries. Somalia is as well.
  - froo 18y ago
    > Huh? You said that there was a growing anti-American sentiment. While I agree, how does what I said prove that? Well, I'll give an example - theres is/was fairly popular show (I don't watch TV all that much, so I'm unsure of its current status) here in Australia called CNNNN that satirised fox news/cnn. The guys who created it have since gone on to create a tv show called the Chaser's War on Everything" Here's one of the more popular clips from CNNNN entitled "Stupid Americans" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ What I gleamed from your comment was the attitude of "Americans dont need anyone else, fuck the rest of the world" In the above clip, particularly pay attention where they're placing pins in countries that these people want to invade. These people more than likely vote and apart from 2 of them, they don't look like political radicals or crazy people. >> For the record: I thought the Americans and the Aussies were allies? > So? That is the exact attitude I am talking about. Semi related - A little anecdote I thought was absolutely hilarious (but also tragic) at the time was that in the early stages of the Iraq war the media was doing lots of broadcasts from that media center they set up. One of the popular media outlets (I forget which, it was Fox or CNN) had a large map of the world which their reporters stood in front of to make broadcasts. It was just a general outline of continents. They actually removed Australia from the map because it was where the reporters were supposed to stand and it was interfering with the shot. What a fantastic way to treat one of the 2 allies that sent military support :)

mattmaroon 18y ago

Wrong on many accounts. 1) McCain won't even remotely attempt to tie this to Obama. Even despite the recent negative turn, this campaign has been fairly civil. Just as Obama passed on commenting about Palin's daughter's personal troubles, McCain will not blame this on the DNC. (Michelle Malkin might be another story, but she doesn't influence anyone whose vote is up for grabs.) It was the college-age son of some state politician who will probably publish remarks condemning it. That'll pretty much be the end of it. 2) In America, the rich old white male (especially one who doesn't know how many homes he owns) is never seen as the underdog to the young black man, even if he is. 3) Most of our worst leaders weren't noobs. George W had more executive branch experience than anyone currently running, and in his second term (which a lot of historians believe to be the worst in history) he'd already had 4 years of trial under fire as President. A lot of times, experience just deeply ingrains one way of doing things and inhibits the mental flexibility needed for such an intellectual job. (And don't get me wrong, I'm terrified as shit of having her as President, but it's not due to her inexperience).

netcan 18y ago
Michelle Malkin might be another story, but she doesn't influence anyone whose vote is up for grabs. I thought in the US system, swinging votes don't really matter. Those fence sitters aren't confident or interested enough to vote anyway. I thought the only thing that mattered was preaching to the choir & getting them to vote at all. Hence scare tactics.
- anamax 18y ago
  > I thought in the US system, swinging votes don't really matter. Those fence sitters aren't confident or interested enough to vote anyway. I thought the only thing that mattered was preaching to the choir & getting them to vote at all. Not at all. While you don't have a chance if your base doesn't come out, they almost always do. As a result, swing votes typically decide US elections. There are, however, two kinds of swing votes. One always votes, but switches. The other shows up occasionally.
- astine 18y ago
  Oh no, in the US system the swing voters are the key. There's always some demographic that isn't on either side and it's they whom the parties secretly try to court. In 2004, it was the 'conservative gay.' I'll leave you to guess what that means.

anamax 18y ago

> the victim of evil attacks by the democrats (even though it was his son, and I'm sure his son has little political preferences yet) Why would you be sure of that? In the US, political preference is typically passed down along family lines. While there are exceptions, this is especially true of politican's families. Above the state level, it's fairly common for one or more kids to go into the family biz. (The Kennedys are merely the best known example.)