Non-American plea to American Dems: Don't let complaceny allow the republican to win

The BBQ Pit
61

So USA dopers, if this were the late 1920s or early 1930s, as Hitler was amassing support, you wouldn’t have tried to convince Germans that he would be a bad choice?

I’m not trying to compare Republicans or McCain to Hitler…I choose him because I’m picking an election that obviously had a huge impact on other countries, and the citizens of those countries obviously saw how it could affect them. They had an interest in the outcome but were not allowed to vote.

I think there is a perceived parallel to Hitler in that in other parts of the world we are often seen as bullies with imperialistic intentions. Remember when they toppled Saddam’s statue and someone put a US flag over its head?! Not the best PR day for the stars and stripes.

Anyway. People vote for a presidential candidate for a number of reasons. They might feel health care is a critical issue, or public education, or fiscal policy.

Among those reasons are the wars we’re in and foreign policy in general. From that perspective, what non-citizens have to say has whatever merit each voter chooses to assign to it.

I for one would rather entertain what they say than pontificate about what I think they believe. Your best friends won’t always tell you if you stink.

62

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Don’t get me wrong, I like Lobsang as a poster. And I don’t mind that he has an opinion on the American election. But it’s stepping over a line when he then attempts to sway voters in a different country.
[/QUOTE]

So he can have an opinion, he just can’t express it? Where exactly is the difference between giving an opinion on the election and attempting to sway voters?

63

[QUOTE=Sublight]
So he can have an opinion, he just can’t express it? Where exactly is the difference between giving an opinion on the election and attempting to sway voters?
[/QUOTE]

Acceptable:
Barack Obama is a more fit candidate/ Barack Obama’s platforms will be best for the world/ Obama’s got the sexymeter up to 11
Unacceptable:
Americans, vote for Barack.

64

[QUOTE=Lobsang]
As a non-american I fall under the umbrella of American influence as the world’s busybody. I accept that. Please don’t let that busybody continue to have a republican at the controls.

I have a horrible feeling that the absolute assuredness that seems to be floating about that the dems are a shoe-in will be the very thing that stops that from happening!

Don’t not vote because you are sure you don’t need to! Don’t give the world another GWB!
[/QUOTE]

Diomedes, where in the above does Lobsang tell Americans who they should vote for? He is expressing his (quite possibly justifiable) concern that some Americans who support Obama may not bother to vote at all because they think that Obama is sure to win.

65

[QUOTE=LurkMeister]
Diomedes, where in the above does Lobsang tell Americans who they should vote for? He is expressing his (quite possibly justifiable) concern that some Americans who support Obama may not bother to vote at all because they think that Obama is sure to win.
[/QUOTE]

On review of the OP… you’re totally right. I read the title of the thread, skimmed over the content that had been posted, then posted halfcocked.

eta: On further review, perhaps it was just the whole 'Don’t give the world another GWB" thing that set me off. In any event, my apologies stand.

66

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
On review of the OP… you’re totally right. I read the title of the thread, skimmed over the content that had been posted, then posted halfcocked.

eta: On further review, perhaps it was just the whole 'Don’t give the world another GWB" thing that set me off. In any event, my apologies stand.
[/QUOTE]

Props to you for this acknowledgment, Diomedes.

67

[QUOTE=Liberal]
You’re the Whore of Babylon.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, thank you.

68

[QUOTE=Ready_for_my_closeup]
I’m sorry, but are some people in this thread seriously suggesting that non-Americans are not allowed to voice an opinion about US politics? Even after the last eight years when it has become painfully obvious how much US politics influence the rest of the world, and regardless of how much the US and its citizens try to influence the politics of other nations?

I can’t believe how arrogant and insular an opinion that is. No-one is forcing you to care about what the rest of the world thinks (although maybe you should, you’re not alone in this world no matter how much you’d like to be), but claiming that we don’t even have the right of an opinion…??? Why is it so offensive to some of you that other people might have an opinion in something where we don’t have any influence, but where the outcome is guaranteed to affect us in some way or another?
[/QUOTE]

This is what I was told in a thread discussing Muslims and how much US Americans should hate them all based on the actions of a few on a different board (I had dared to take a contrary opinion):

to a chorus of agreement and hand-clapping. I’m not sure why non-US Americans having opinions is so offensive, but apparently it is.

69

[QUOTE=Liberal]
He’s the fucking beast from Revelation.
[/QUOTE]

A socially liberal yet fiscally conservative politician… and you of all people don’t like him. What am I missing?

70

WE ARE GOING TO ELECT THE OLD WHITE REPUBLICAN.

I just want to get you guys used to the idea, because that’s what I believe, with all my shriveled heart, is going to happen.

71

First of all, John McCain is not George Bush. So judge him on his own merits, or flaws, and not George Bush’s.

Secondly, it’s not complacency that has allowed Republicans to win last two elections. It’s the gross incompetency of the Democratic leadership. In 2000, they mandated that Gore distance himself from Clinton because instead of running a campaign based on pumping up their candidate, they simply reacted to the talking heads and Republican congressmen who had mounted a very personal campaign against Bill Clinton. Instead of fighting offensively, they fought a defensive campaign. Trouble is the public, generally speaking, liked Clinton and I believe would have elected him again had he been allowed. But we weren’t allowed to ever see, or hear, Gore’s real opinions. He simply reacted to what the Democratic leadership thought the American public wanted to hear. Gore should have won in a landslide, but his campaign was so sorely mismanaged that a very weak candidate was able to beat the front runner.

In 2004, the Democrats believed that their candidate would win just because he wasn’t George Bush. Rule #1 is to never underestimate your opponent. Once again instead of going on the offensive, they kowtowed to the far right and refused to allow their candidate to differentiate himself from Bush on any matter of substance, such as gay marriage, abortion and the war in Iraq. They were afraid of alienating the far right, whose support they’d never have, instead of focusing on winning over their own supporters. At least half of all Americans would allow abortion and gay marriages, but would Kerry ever voice such an opinion? Never. And so he lost.

And now we have 2 Democratic candidates that have done more damage to each other’s credibility than the Republicans could ever have done. The Republican party, with its old boy network, simply told their candidates when they were done, finished, kaput. It’s really very simple. They tell their losing candidates that they either drop out of they won’t endorse or financially support him any more. That’s the way to run a party. The Democrats, on the other hand, allowed their two main candidates to attack each other and polarize their own freaking party. So now instead of having one united party, we know have the Obama lovers and the Hilary lovers. And it might backfire on them big time.

Honestly, the Democrats should write a manual on How to Lose a Sure Thing in 5 Easy Steps. They sure are experts on the matter.

72

[QUOTE=gravitycrash]
Anybody who thinks Obama has this election in the bag is delusional.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus, no freaking kidding! I’m not going to not vote because I think Obama has this election in the bag, I’m going to (probably) not vote because there’s no way in hell he can possibly win.

President McCain. barf, but that’s what will happen

President Obama dream the fuck on

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
The reason a Republican will win this time around is because of the media. They focused to strongly on two novelty acts (Hillary and Obama) that more credible and qualified people weren’t even noticed this time around. So, you can thank the US Media for another Bush-esque nominee.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this 100%.

73

[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
First of all, John McCain is not George Bush. So judge him on his own merits, or flaws, and not George Bush’s.
[/QUOTE]

When he soundly rejects Bush’s policies, instead of embracing them then I will. 100 more years of Iraqi war eh?

74

[QUOTE=Ogre]
WE ARE GOING TO ELECT THE OLD WHITE REPUBLICAN.

I just want to get you guys used to the idea, because that’s what I believe, with all my shriveled heart, is going to happen.
[/QUOTE]

I see two possible scenarios here.

  1. Obama fails to make any inroads in the South, McCain wins. I’m pretty sure this is how it will go down, unfortunately. Economy gradually climbs out of the shitter, but American forces remain in Iraq.

  2. Obama wins, economy gradually climbs out of the shitter, but American forces still stuck in Iraq at end of his term. His Veep, Bill Richardson, becomes Democratic nominee and wins Presidency (depending on whether the Republicans find to run against him). My crystal ball doesn’t go much further than that.

I feel bad for Obama because I feel like even if he wins he’s not going to get the same breaks as a white president. He’s like Ty Willingham at Notre Dame - all the white head coaches got five years to turn the program around, but Ty only got three. McCain would get two terms to turn the country around, but Obama would only get one.

Keeping troops in Iraq does not imply that he supports Bush’s policies. We destroyed their infrastructure, government and economy (well, what was left of the economy); we have a responsibility to help them fix it, even if you believe as most of us do that the invasion was a stupid idea.

75

[QUOTE=gaffa]
That’s been going on for years. Iran seems like to most likely supplier for the simple reason that Reagan supplied the Shah with US Mint presses, tools and training.
[/QUOTE]
Reagan did that when he was Govenor of California?

76

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

Keeping troops in Iraq does not imply that he supports Bush’s policies. We destroyed their infrastructure, government and economy (well, what was left of the economy); we have a responsibility to help them fix it, even if you believe as most of us do that the invasion was a stupid idea.
[/QUOTE]

Oh it was the stupidest idea ever. Only a complete and utter fool would say otherwise. I agree we have a responsibility to fix the mess we made.

However McCain seems to be inline with Bush’s policies about “nation building” from the start. If he isn’t, then he sure is quiet about it.

77

[QUOTE=The Tao’s Revenge]
However McCain seems to be inline with Bush’s policies about “nation building” from the start. If he isn’t, then he sure is quiet about it.
[/QUOTE]

I must admit, it would have been awesome (and probably much better for his campaign) if he’d openly refused GWB’s endorsement.

78

[QUOTE=The Tao’s Revenge]
Oh it was the stupidest idea ever. Only a complete and utter fool would say otherwise. I agree we have a responsibility to fix the mess we made.
[/QUOTE]

It was a stupid idea to invade, we do have a responsibility to fix the mess or at least stay until it’s clear that the mess simply can’t be fixed…and McCain acknowledges that. His 100 years thing was taking out of context and has been used to beat him over the head with…and will probably continue to be used so for the duration of the campaign. I think that at least McCain has been honest about the realistic expectations for US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future…while I think the two Dem candidates have been less than honest about it (at least based on their respective fans, especially the Obama-ites who seem to believe that once Obama is elected the troops will be on the way home).

[QUOTE=The Tao’s Revenge]
However McCain seems to be inline with Bush’s policies about “nation building” from the start. If he isn’t, then he sure is quiet about it.
[/QUOTE]

I actually don’t know what McCain’s stance on this has been (I’m not very interested in McCain myself and have no desire to vote for him)…and I doubt you know either. Regardless, McCain is certainly not Bush (or The Fucking Beast either…thinking about it I think The Fucking Beast is taller too), regardless of whether Bush endorses him or not. McCain has enough problems of his own, enough issues from his stances that can be used to attack his positions without trying to equate him to Bush as well.

Besides…he’s really REALLY old! And he also has very little chance of actually winning against Obama in November…

-XT

79

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
Money talks.

If all these countries put their money together and bought some black market biological weapons…?

If all these countries decided to hire the best nuclear scientists in the world by adding a zero to their current salaries and developed nukes of their own…?

If all these countries decided to charge $500 per barrel of oil…$1000?

Maybe they could buy influence in other countries or our own. Maybe they could hire hackers to break into the Pentagon computers. Maybe they could hire the best counterfeiters and screw up our economy.

Money. Big money. I wouldn’t like to give them a cause to use their imagination.
[/QUOTE]

Good points, all. Really! Some of the better arguments against our currently ham-fisted, “bomb-'em-all” approach. When you aquire the habit to pick up a hammer to solve a problem, all your problems tend to look like nails.

But most of those actions would rain a shitstorm down upon their collective heads, the likes of which they are ill-equipped to cope with.

Come to think of it though, considering our inept response to hurricane Katrina, we may not be as prepared as we would like to hope we are to some of your scenarios.

Seriously, the best course of action to disentangling ourselves from the whole ME mess would be to develop sufficient technology alternatives to the Oil Trap and tell them to go drink their weight in oil. Or go eat sand. And pray all you want; as many times a day as you like to.

Unfortunately, as you imply, money talks, and too many “western” multi-national economic juggernauts have too much vested interest in doing business with the ME, and have the money to buy entire governments, and get them involved in “short, victorious wars.”

I believe this to be true regardless of the party affiliation of the occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.

80

[QUOTE=Lobsang]
As a non-american I fall under the umbrella of American influence as the world’s busybody. I accept that. Please don’t let that busybody continue to have a republican at the controls.

I have a horrible feeling that the absolute assuredness that seems to be floating about that the dems are a shoe-in will be the very thing that stops that from happening!

Don’t not vote because you are sure you don’t need to! Don’t give the world another GWB!
[/QUOTE]

If McCain is elected, you’ll have your wish. He’s a RINO.

But even as such, he’s a damn sight better for this country and the world than Obama.

What factors contributed to turning Trump into Cuntus Maximus?