Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I think a significant problem is that voting isn't compulsory in the USA. In other democratic countries, this creates a situation where everyone bemoans that they have to settle for the lesser evil, but it also prevents extremists from mobilising interest groups to act against actual democratic process. Romney might have won 49% of the vote because the Republican party has appealed heavily to that kind of extremism, and then you've got situations where people will vote for a particular political party irrespective of who's actually in the running.
There's also the whole "swing state" fiasco the USA has going on, which is bound to bias voting tendencies. For instance, I think it was ClockworkINUH who said he wasn't going to vote due to not being in a swing state -- I wonder what the numbers would have looked like if everyone actually voted? Political centrists are probably less likely to vote due to the false left/right dichotomy set up (when the reality is that the situation is right/extreme right), as are leftists whose ideals aren't represented at all in the current political climate.
I think the factors of noncompulsory voting and swing states contribute some significant issues to US politics which are always going to bias the data in some way or another, irrespective of who actually has greater support from the voter population. Perhaps Romney would have lost more significantly if they were addressed; perhaps he may have won. The only sure thing is that the current state of affairs ensures that a significant part of the US population goes unrepresented when it comes time to elect a president.
Oddly enough, my dad (Puerto Rican, but a Mainer for most of his life) still really hates Obama. . . . Oh, boy, he's gonna be pissed. Then again, same with mom. Maybe it comes from his drinking buddies at the bar, or, hell, talking to mom.
Can't answer that, but . . . wait, how did New York and New Jersey go? Some of the people I was watching with pointed out that a lot of people in those states are still recovering from Sandy, and therefore didn't have time to vote. Would that have changed anything? Just tossing some speculation out there.
I'll just say, I hoped Romney'd win, but my motives were kinda low. I wanted to watch the nerdrage erupting in that thread back at 'Tropes. To be more serious Romney would be kinda better pick from my local point of view, but that would be of limited matter if I could vote in US elections.
The both went to Obama, but I doubt it would have changed anything. All polls pre-sandy heavily leaned to an Obama win in those states.
How could Romney have possibly been a better foreign policy pick? He can't open his mouth without sounding like a complete tool let alone work with other people.
^^ I figured as much. Thanks.
I am actually sad that Latinos are socially conservative folks. But really,
How does this work? Since when did the guy not spew 80's style cold war rhetoric?
When he was fighting the class war
... people still use this word in public? Like, people who aren't black?
For fuck's sake. >_< For the side that talks so much about class warfare, you seem to be awfully short on it.
Respectable people? No.
People worth talking to? Certainly not.
Idiots? Absolutely.
And for every person who says it in public unashamedly, there are 20 more who say it all the time with their family and friends. And 50 more who use it ad nauseum on the internet.
Chris Rock expands on the matter.
"Check with your nigga consulate, talk to you nigga representative..."
I don't know why I always laugh at that so much.
I'm curious to what you mean by that
If you don't mind me channelling Alex, I'll explain. I'll begin with the fact that Russia is the traditional bad guy in this part of the world.
Remember that ballistic missile shield of Bush? It was quite the rage in here. In case of a full-on missile attack, it wouldn't help us at best and would make us a primary target at worst, but at least, having a missile base would mean presence of American army on our soil. In case of anyone in the neighbourhood trying anything funny, this could serve to cool down some hotter heads. Avoiding pissing off the US is a good business practice, and it's harder when there are Americans you bomb, so in such a case it may be wiser not to bomb at all.
At least, that's how the logic goes. So what I want to say here, are two things. The first is that missile shield is mostly a Republican dream toy, while on the other hand Obama declared he drops the idea of a missile base in Poland. The second thing: he announced it on 17th of September. You probably won't recognize the date, but it's the day when we got invaded by the Soviet Union during the last war.
So much about Republicans having the monopoly on diplomatic blunders.
The second part is that Republicans tend to see us as a weapon against Russia. You may say it's thinking that's outdated by some two or three decades, but the closer you are to Russia, the better it is to stay on the safe side, and as long as Americans think of us in Cold War terms, we get their weight behind us, in case of anything.
I'll tell you a fun fact here: name a famous Pole. Lech Walesa, right? Yeeeaaah. If you're Catholic you might also mention the late Pope, and that's about all. You probably wouldn't guess all of the right wing here hates Walesa (the left puts up with him mostly out of habit and to bash the right BTW). But when Romney was in Poland, he chose to speak with him - because in this view, he used him predominantly as a symbol of his intended policy, mostly for other Americans, but it's clear enough for us and the others. The very fact that he came to Poland speaks much, too.
So we forgot Poland, basically?
Yeah. Whatever their reason, Republicans tend not to. Poland was like one of the only two countries in Europe (I forgot the other) where Bush was not hated.
That would all count for a lot more if Russia was actually going to do anything but horde diamonds. Today's world works on the power of economy; now that capitalism is all nice and fired out, and we're not working out the kinks, traditional warfare is becoming passe. Why fight when you can just buy out your adversaries? After all, the result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will essentially be that Western businesses have a larger gateway into the Middle East. It's covert colonialism, but unlike the physical expansionism of Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe, or the warlike imperialism of the 20th century USA, it's consistently sustainable over long periods of time without rest.
If Russia wants power, they can't take it through expanding their borders. At least not yet, and not for a long time. They'd need to build their economy to such a level that they could win military dominance by default, but on those grounds, they'd be competing against the USA, China and Germany. Russia can play at being a contemporary threat all it likes, but they just don't have the resources to both expand their economy and maintain a lengthy military campaign at the same time. And I daresay Poland's neighbours would have a thing or two to say, because a war doesn't happen in a vacuum and Poland is probably too close for comfort for, say, England -- let alone immediate neighbours like the Czech Republic and Germany.
^^^
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20243574
Interesting article that sums up everything that people are saying about the GOP
@Alex: So this means that US president who does not care at all is not less preferable than one who pretends he does, okay.
You seem to have centered your argument around the missile shield. I, hovewer, strived to describe the issue more broadly, and while I began with, to call it this way, military logic, I believe what I wrote is just broad enough not to confine it purely to military action. Gazprom, the Russian oil company that is considered a front for the government in resource colonialism you mentioned, has already been known to play tricks with gas prices. I see no reason why a hawkish US president, especially in the light of the fact that the outdated worldview of the Republicans makes them see us as their protectorate, would not be preferable to someone who would probably care nothing at all about that.
Ah, and as a footnote - what I want to stress is that I try to explain why folks here like to see hawks in the White House. I wouldn't care about Local Power X losing to Local Power Y somewhere in the Antipodes, if industry in here was stifled by gas embargo.
Back to the waging of war - the Czechs, however much I may like them, aren't really known for military prowess (been quite the time since Hussites, you know), and I am not sure of the rest of Europe. I guess Germans could put up quite a fight, but as far as I remember, the Libyan revolution proved that Britain and France aren't really prepared for a war. Even though they got to act, still - ammunition stocks were used up a bit too soon, something about that. The US, meanwhile, is the kind of big buddy who seems to actually have some muscle behind the threats.
BTW:
Hey, a European article on the United States that doesn't try to paint us as a bunch of lunatics. That's refreshing. Of course, It's not like I read a lot of them, so this might be the norm.
And thank God for it. I'm tired of Social Conservatism, and I think that may be what won Obama the election.
That's not the point. The point is that US politics hold influence over not only the USA, not only Poland, but the entirety of the world. Since the end of WWII, Australia has been more and more consistently acting as an unofficial US state, for instance. Our mouths are too full of American semen to even gargle a complaint. So choosing a US president to back goes much further than one's personal issues or one's national issues, because US politics are global. Thanks to the alliance between US Protestants and the Republican party, I daresay said Protestants hold more political sway than the Vatican, just as one example.
The other thing, really, is why are you looking to external sources for national validation? I don't think Poland actually needs anyone to pat it on the head and tell it nice things, because despite the odds, Poland has come out of its own history pretty decently. The country's spent most of its history getting fucked by either the Germans or the Russians, and yet here it is, standing on its own two feet. Compare with, say, Greece, the birthplace of democracy and the basis for Western culture, which is now under the thumb of a neo-nazi party that seems to have bought out half the police force.
I understand, very clearly, how deeply you care for Poland. But I think a part of caring for a place is looking towards its own self-sufficiency rather than reliance on a foreign power. And I think, perhaps, Poland has spent too long being subject to the whims and needs of other countries.
Given that a significant portion of Europe is a part of NATO, and that NATO allies are obliged to lend some kind of support in times of war, I suspect Russia would be sent packing quickly.
Nice try, pandering to patriotism or whatever, but this way you force yourself into issues of history. (edit: not to mention - remember my issues about being called cool? You just did it.) I can now ask, what was the right choice? Take this as an example, trying for self-sufficiency has been done all over the nineteenth century, heh heh. Or I could start a debate on Napoleon Bonaparte.
I'd also ask, because this is pretty much te point: can you tell me, why is it bad, to have the backing of a foreign power, as opposed to not being backed?
You may also want to know I find it a gross oversimplification to say "spent most of its history getting fucked by either the Germans or the Russians". It's just bad history. It seems that in the public perception the history of Poland, when it gets out of "lol poor idiots" tracks, just can't avoid going all the way to "plucky little country".
Because the backing would never be sincere; you'd just be used rather than an actual partner to the USA. And you'd be used by the kind of Republican who thinks the Cold War never ended, which might be a self-fulfilling prophecy and bring the pressure down on Poland. So Poland would become a scapegoat for US warmongers.
The nineteenth century was a clusterfuck of power struggles owing to the inevitable fall of traditional colonialism, given that pretty much everywhere that could be colonised was, in fact, colonised. What conditions were relevant to the nineteenth century are not necessarily relevant to today, and I don't think Poland has anything to fear from French expansionism.
I know very well the Poland is more than a "plucky little country"; for example, Poland could be considered the the primary barrier between the Teutonic knights and their European crusades, eventually breaking their otherwise spotless success rate to such an extent that they never recovered and eventually lost all relevance as a military force. Given that the Teutonic knights both outlived the Templars and exceeded them in terms of martial reputation, I'd say that's pretty significant.
Nor do I wish to imply that Poland never bit back, or did other things of relevance. I also know that Poland was the only kingdom of medieval Europe to exercise a quarantine during the black plague, saving it almost entirely from the economic and social downfall that befell other kingdoms. I am certainly not trying to disrespect Poland here, but it's worth noting that it's a country with a history of being bullied and manipulated. And to accept someone like Romney on the basis that he might perhaps pay attention to your country just seems as though it would put Poland down the same path, because it's putting dependency in the hands of a foreign power -- and against a phantom enemy with no real capacity to even approach Central Europe, no less.
No, dude, Poland is like the one place outside France where people genuinely like and admire Napoleon. He's joking about what a shitstorm bringing that fact up can start.
I stand corrected.
Finally, you start sounding like you've got an argument. I could discuss this matter further, but sorry, it is a bit too late and I don't feel like it now. I'll limit myself to saying that US backing does not mean the backed ones can't or won't act on their own (i.e. US backing is nice, but we still build that gas tankers' port), and that the phantom enemy has quite enough means to approach Central Europe. Bribes, secret agents, hold on resources. You, yourself, said economy is the real frontline today.
And BTW it's nice that you know, but you didn't have to prove it. I'd have been fine if you just said it.
Lazuli: too be fair, one half of our party system is made up of lunatics. Ever look at what the neocons actually -believe- and -want-? I'd be pretty worried too if they were allowed within 5 miles of a nuclear weapon or the button to launch it.