Barack Obama (election coverage only-official)

[AKAKBUCK]

Well, the Euros spent a lot of time hating Reagan because they were convinced that he was going to start WWIII with the Soviets and they'd get vaporized by nukes and there was nothing they could do about it.

This is the problem... its not that Dubya or Clinton or Reagan did what they thought was right, its that they (meaning the small pants out there) don't like it and have nothing they can say to stop it.

Think of how your average hippie feels about Dubya.

Are you really mad because of what it is that the big mean bully is doing, or is it because no one gives a [censored] what you think?

Difference is, with Obama and McCain, they still won't give a [censored] what Pierre the Frenchie thinks about America...

There's no fixing it.

(And, the Russians were much more up in arms about the Serbia thing than anyone remembers, invading their sphere of influnece... but... nothing they could do about it... its very humiliating on a nationalistic level)

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

Congratulations, you've found an exception to an argument that wasn't being made here. The poll being discussed was relative to one candidate in this election versus the other.

I haven't seen a recent favorability poll, do you have a link?

I think you're missing the point here. Why does it matter whether the citizenry of another country like us or not. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to assert some harm falls upon America by picking the guy who's less popular around the world and US standing is harmed by a president the world doesn't like.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

Well, the Euros spent a lot of time hating Reagan because they were convinced that he was going to start WWIII with the Soviets and they'd get vaporized by nukes and there was nothing they could do about it.

This is the problem... its not that Dubya or Clinton or Reagan did what they thought was right, its that they (meaning the small pants out there) don't like it and have nothing they can say to stop it.

Think of how your average hippie feels about Dubya.

Are you really mad because of what it is that the big mean bully is doing, or is it because no one gives a [censored] what you think?

Difference is, with Obama and McCain, they still won't give a [censored] what Pierre the Frenchie thinks about America...

There's no fixing it.

(And, the Russians were much more up in arms about the Serbia thing than anyone remembers, invading their sphere of influnece... but... nothing they could do about it... its very humiliating on a nationalistic level)

Damn, you're right....and there is nothing I can do about it. I hate you!

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

I think you're missing the point here. Why does it matter whether the citizenry of another country like us or not. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to assert some harm falls upon America by picking the guy who's less popular around the world and US standing is harmed by a president the world doesn't like.

I was initially responding to this post:

Originally Posted by scooter1369

That reason alone is enough to vote for McCain. Not damn one of those people have the best interests of the Unites States in mind. They would all dearly love to see the collapse of the American Empire. And to them, Obama is the one to do it.

which, as I said, I thought to be non-sensical.

I don't think American's should necessarily vote based on international opinion. I think it's entirely stupid to vote based on the opposite of international opinion, which is where the conversation started.

However, in this election, I do think it is interesting that the international community has so overwhelmingly lined up behind one candidate over the other - which is why I posted the polling data from Gallup. I think it's interesting given the clear differences between the two candidates' approaches to international relations. One has stressed increased diplomacy, which I tend to agree with. The other seems to support continued unilateralism, though I find it difficult to discern much of plan at all.

To me, the fact that the international community seems to strongly support the candidate who favors increased diplomacy tells me that a) so do they, and b) as such, other countries may help facilitate increased international diplomacy. Now, having gone several steps into this argument, do I think a president with the ability to interact more fluidly with the international community is important? Yes, I suppose I do.

Does this have anything to do with Clinton and Serbia? I can't see a direct connection.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

I was initially responding to this post:



which, as I said, I thought to be non-sensical.

I don't think American's should necessarily vote based on international opinion. I think it's entirely stupid to vote based on the opposite of international opinion, which is where the conversation started.

However, in this election, I do think it is interesting that the international community has so overwhelmingly lined up behind one candidate over the other - which is why I posted the polling data from Gallup. I think it's interesting given the clear differences between the two candidates' approaches to international relations. One has stressed increased diplomacy, which I tend to agree with. The other seems to support continued unilateralism, though I find it difficult to discern much of plan at all.

To me, the fact that the international community seems to strongly support the candidate who favors increased diplomacy tells me that a) so do they, and b) as such, they may support increased international diplomacy. Now, having gone several steps into this argument, do I think a president with the ability to interact more fluidly with the international community is important? Yes, I suppose I do.

Does this have anything to do with Clinton and Serbia? I can't see a direct connection.

I was putting Serbia and this post Clinton as well as example of country not liking us for a while. Serbia doesn't like us but that dislike hasn't brought down the NATO mission in Kosovo and or NATO efforts in the Balkans. I thought you were trying to argue that the US had some sort of great tangible harm befalling it by having a President who wasn't loved overseas.

[shetuck]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

... you seem to assert some harm falls upon America by picking the guy who's less popular around the world and US standing is harmed by a president the world doesn't like.

I'm not one to kowtow to high-schoolish popularity contests just so we Americans don't get dirty looks when we walk around European capitals (and I think a good bit of the "sentiment" is just that), but you have to admit that the standing of ANY country in the world is and can be harmed by a president that other people (and their leaders) don't like. A few good examples come immediately to mind...

It makes all kinds of things, the least of which aren't statesmanship and negotiation, unnecessarily difficult. We are harmed, then, indirectly because other nations and their representatives will not easily sit across the negotiating table with us in good faith and without pretense. It's a simple fact that acerbic leadership causes isolation and estrangement.

Granted, you can (and may) come back and tell me there's nothing wrong with being protected and isolated from the rest of the world and the interests and motivations of other nations. But if that's how you respond, the issue isn't really about leadership that is perceived in a positive light around the world, as much as it is about whether we (as a nation) feel like we need to be actively engaged in the international community.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Damn, you're right....and there is nothing I can do about it. I hate you!

Shut up you elitist pr ck mod!

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

To me, the fact that the international community seems to strongly support the candidate who favors increased diplomacy tells me that a) so do they, and b) as such, other countries may help facilitate increased international diplomacy. Now, having gone several steps into this argument, do I think a president with the ability to interact more fluidly with the international community is important? Yes, I suppose I do.

Yeah, maybe Barack will listen to them....

... and then do what they WANT.

Stupid foreigners.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

I was putting Serbia and this post Clinton as well as example of country not liking us for a while. Serbia doesn't like us but that dislike hasn't brought down the NATO mission in Kosovo and or NATO efforts in the Balkans. I thought you were trying to argue that the US had some sort of great tangible harm befalling it by having a President who wasn't loved overseas.

What I actually meant to say was, [censored] STATE PENN.

[JXC]

Bush is hated by everybody, inside of our country and outside. I think the whole world is sick of Bush. And McCain isn't Bush...he just agrees with him on the same issues that I feel have made Bush such a bad President.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Don't forget about Poland!

Poland loves us...well at least until we sell them down the river so as not to anger the Russians as per Tresselbeliever's post.

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

(And, the Russians were much more up in arms about the Serbia thing than anyone remembers,...)

Anyone?

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

Think of how your average hippie feels about Dubya.

Are you really mad because of what it is that the big mean bully is doing, or is it because no one gives a [censored] what you think?

Originally Posted by JXC

Bush is hated by everybody, inside of our country and outside. I think the whole world is sick of Bush. And McCain isn't Bush...he just agrees with him on the same issues that I feel have made Bush such a bad President.

Hmmm...

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by shetuck

I'm not one to cow-tow to high-schoolish popularity contests just so we Americans don't get dirty looks when we walk around European capitals (and I think a good bit of the "sentiment" is just that), but you have to admit that the standing of ANY country in the world is and can be harmed by a president that other people (and their leaders) don't like. A few good examples come immediately to mind...

It makes all kinds of things, the least of which aren't statesmanship and negotiation, unnecessarily difficult. We are harmed, then, indirectly because other nations and their representatives will not easily sit across the negotiating table with us in good faith and without pretense. It's a simple fact that acerbic leadership causes isolation and estrangement.

Granted, you can (and may) come back and tell me there's nothing wrong with being protected and isolated from the rest of the world and the interests and motivations of other nations. But if that's how you respond, the issue isn't really about leadership that is perceived in a positive light around the world, as much as it is about whether we (as a nation) feel like we need to be actively engaged in the international community.

I'm not sure based on what I've learned that a country like the US with the power we had would be isolated and estranged in the international community. Bush was certainly disliked in Germany, France, etc but I don't think we had truly great impact on the international system.

I think it would a dictator or madman to have the harms you're looking at.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Take an IR class

Is that where you learned to make purely speculative statements that you can't possibly support?

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by generaladm

Is that where you learned to make purely speculative statements that you can't possibly support?