|
|
 Fri Jan 04, 2008 16:24 pm American candidates |
|
|
It can't be Edwards, because he's a phony.
Obama has no chance to be president, because he's inexperienced and often described as an "empty suit". If he gets too far ahead, you'll start to hear his enemies make frequent use of his full name, "Barak Hussein Obama". It will come up again that he attended a Muslim madrassa in Indonesia when he was a child. Also Hillary and Bill have a very vicious attack machine, and if Barak looks like he'll win the nomination, their private investigators will find some detail of his life to smear him with. However, if Barak behaves himself, he has a chance to be vice president.
Hillary may get the nomination no matter what, but the reason Obama won in Iowa was that so many people hate Hillary so much. I've already heard noises in the German media that a lot of Americans object to her because she's a woman, but that's just typical stupid thinking of Germans who are stuck in the 1970s. People's real problem is that Hillary tends to be vicious, is a runaway socialist, and is arrogant in a way that none of the male candidates are. Even a lot of liberals can't stand her. Another problem is that Bill Clinton has come to be thought of as kind of a buffoonish character in the US, and there's suspicion that Hillary's run is a way of getting Bill back in the White House for a third and maybe fourth term that he's legally not allowed to run for himself, much as Mrs. Perón and now Mrs. Kirchner have become president of Argentina in a similar strategy. There's even fear that she would appoint Bill to the Supreme Court.
Huckabee probably can't become president because his name is too funny. I'm not joking about this. Plus, even many devout Christians are made uncomfortable by his extreme, naive Christianity, because we've already been through that kind of disaster with Jimmy Carter (the most catastrophic president in modern history). Early releases of dangerous prisoners killed the Dukakis nomination years ago, and they can be used to kill Huckabee's chances. People are voting for Huckabee because they want another Ronald Reagan and none is being offered.
My bet is that in November the choice will be this:
Democrats: Hillary for president with Obama for VP, unless she dredges up Al Gore, which would hurt her chances of winning.
Republicans: Romney for president and Giuliani or McCain for VP.
Libertarians: Michael Badnarik and nobody cares who for VP.
Communist Party USA: Maybe Angela Davis again, and who knows for VP.
Independent Democrats: Lyndon Larouche for the millionth time, even if he's dead. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Fri Jan 04, 2008 18:08 pm American candidates |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
I’ll pick out some characteristics of those politicians you described:
- phony
- inexperienced
- smear campaign
- vicious
- alleged socialist/liberal
- arrogant
- buffoonish character
- devout Christian
- catastrophic president
I’d argue that all but one of these characteristics would suitably describe the current president, and still, he has been elected two times. And his second campaign brought about a completely unexpected landslide victory over Kerry. The latter lost because people thought he was too sophisticated, but vanity alone surely wasn’t the sin that frustrated his efforts. He simply wasn’t tangible. And I think this is what people in America (and increasingly more so in Europe as well) want; somebody they think they can trust because they like him. Maybe even somebody who is thought to be a bit of a mug; somebody who lacks the cunning to be cunning. It’s better to have a muppet than a bogey, better Merkel than Schroder; better Bush than a second Clinton.
In Europe you still find those charismatic fiends as in the likes of Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Aznar. But they don’t usually last long.
_________________
Test of English as a Foreign Language
TOEFL Preparation & TOEFL Vocabulary
Learn more: How to Become an English Teacher |
|
Ralf
Language Coach
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 1434
Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
 |
| Fri Jan 04, 2008 23:30 pm American candidates |
|
|
| Ralf wrote: | I’ll pick out some characteristics of those politicians you described:
- phony
- inexperienced
- smear campaign
- vicious
- alleged socialist/liberal
- arrogant
- buffoonish character
- devout Christian
- catastrophic president |
I didn't say "devout Christian". I believe I said that even devout Christians are bothered by Huckabee's "extreme, naive Christianity". (The fact that I said "extreme, naive" and you translated it into "devout" says something about you.) Not all liberals are socialists, so don't get the two mixed up. (And why didn't you put the word "alleged" before any of the other adjectives?) The rest of those adjectives are applied to Bush 43 by the radical leftist media (the BBC, CNN and most of the German press are leftist), but they are not applied to Bush by his responsible opponents. Just as they did with Reagan, those media have turned him into a cartoon character, and it's going to take a couple of decades to sort it all out.
| Ralf wrote: | | I’d argue that all but one of these characteristics would suitably describe the current president, |
He wasn't inexperienced. He'd been governor of Texas twice. Before that he'd had experience that neither of his opponents had, which was that he had worked in the private sector, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Gore and Kerry had spent their whole lives in politics, and Gore had simply inherited his dad's Senate seat, so in 2000 you had two politicians' children running against each other.
| Ralf wrote: | | and still, he has been elected two times. And his second campaign brought about a completely unexpected landslide victory over Kerry. |
That would be a surprise to a European, because almost all your reporting on the US is slanted left, stuck in the '60s.
| Ralf wrote: | | The latter lost because people thought he was too sophisticated, but vanity alone surely wasn’t the sin that frustrated his efforts. He simply wasn’t tangible. |
Kerry didn't lose just on vanity. He couldn't keep his stands on the issues consistent. He exaggerated his military record and actually lied about things he had seen in Vietnam. He also used a campaign strategy that worked in the 1960s but is a loser now. That's the one where the politician with half a billion dollars, who shelters most of his income and pays almost no taxes, pretends he's for the little guy. Then he proposes all kinds of oppressive tax policies and business regulations that punish investment (half the American public are in the investor class) and punish productivity in the middle class. That generally infuriates people nowadays, because the economy and people's professions operate much differently than they did in the 1960s. He also hanged himself with his belief that the US should consult the UN in decisions to defend itself. The final blow was in the last days when Osama bin Laden came on TV and gave Kerry his endorsement.
Basically, Kerry was part of an Eastern political class that looks down on the ordinary people -- especially those in the South and in the interior of the country -- and on people who do not work in the government or nonprofit sectors. People like that can do a lot of damage, even if they're trying to do good, and this is why he was unpopular. Another, more minor factor was that he had a dirty-mouthed wife who gave vent to the social prejudices that Kerry tried to hide. Americans like civilized manners in their First Ladies, so she damaged his campaign.
Al Gore damaged his chances in two main ways: (1) He had only ever been in politics. (2) He has a habit of telling foolish lies. Americans would have forgiven him for the sorts of lies politicians typically tell, but he didn't tell those. He told weird, over-the-top lies that were easy to disprove and laugh about the next day and for months after. People thought that if he would tell that type of comical lie again and again, he could probably not be trusted to make decisions. Many people would say that his behavior since losing that election, up to this day, confirms that he's a little delusional. However, in Europe, where people don't get all the American news, he is revered as a god.
| Ralf wrote: | | And I think this is what people in America (and increasingly more so in Europe as well) want; somebody they think they can trust because they like him. Maybe even somebody who is thought to be a bit of a mug; somebody who lacks the cunning to be cunning. It’s better to have a muppet than a bogey, better Merkel than Schroder; better Bush than a second Clinton. |
I think you're holding to an oversimplified picture of how Americans make election decisions. In Europe, you have less of a choice of media, most of the broadcast media are state run and are supplemented by US media that are mostly committed to leftist causes, such as CNN, the NY Times, etc. (One of my American friends who stayed behind in Europe calls his media environment there "a 24-hour propaganda bath".) Because you get the Democrats' talking points largely reported as fact by those media, and you seldom get the immediate refutation from the other side, as we get here, Europeans tend to be flabbergasted when the "wrong" American candidate wins. In addition to that, I think a lot of Europeans don't even understand the issues here, because your political right is our political center, and real conservatism sounds to people there as if it comes from somewhere past the edge of the earth.
| Ralf wrote: | | In Europe you still find those charismatic fiends as in the likes of Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Aznar. But they don’t usually last long. |
The Europeans are going to have to go with a guy like that sooner or later, because if they don't they'll never get out of their problems with the economy and low employment. Especially France needs policies like those Sarkozy proposes, but it's questionable that they'll let it happen. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:30 am American candidates |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Hillary may get the nomination no matter what, but the reason Obama won in Iowa was that so many people hate Hillary so much. |
Hi Jamie,
I think those people who hate any politician don't hate that politician but rather hate themselves for not being able or willing to make decisions and bring about a change.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7377
Location: EU
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:34 am American candidates |
|
|
Kerry was a waffler.
Ralf, John Kerry would tell you one opinion... then talk to me five minutes later and give a different view.
President Bush takes a lot of crap, but i'll tell you what he's done that I appreciate:
1) Iraq action removed Saddam Hussein, who needed to go. Mistakes were made in Iraq before and after, but essentially I think it was a noble mission.
2) After 9/11, the tax cuts brought the investment markets back and kept the economy strong.
3) Spends a lot because of the war, but not in many socialist areas (like welfare). This money being spent in Iraq and to hunt terrorists elsewhere is to protect all Americans (and lovers of Western ideals everywhere, really).
I am afraid that if Hillary or Obama wins it, our taxes will increase quite a bit as we pay for other people's food/health care (especially hearlth care -- Obama and Hillary want to go socialist on that).
What made (makes) our economy great is our respect for free enterprise -- our expectation of each person to make his own way and the respect we show for the rights of individuals to spend/invest their own money as they see fit. Once we start really stealing from productive members of society and giving their money to unproductive members (who choose not to work) -- or since we're already doing that to an extent with the welfare initiatives that are already in place, once we go to socialized health care -- we would be taking away more of the main thing that makes our economy great, our economic freedom.
financial liberty must be preserved. that's why I hope our next prez isn't Obama or Clinton. Their impacts on our economy -- and our long-standing economic ideals -- would be catastrophic.
If there were a moderate democrat who had a prayer of winning the White House, that might not be so bad. But Obama and Clinton are left-wing, chicken-in-a-pot American Democrats who believe that government should provide for people, instead of people providing for themselves.
I hope it's John McCain.
Or, heck, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee -- anyone but Obama or Clinton.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2145
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:38 am American candidates |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Hillary may get the nomination no matter what, but the reason Obama won in Iowa was that so many people hate Hillary so much. |
Hi Jamie,
I think those people who hate any politician don't hate that politician but rather hate themselves for not being able or willing to make decisions and bring about a change. |
No, in this case they really dislike Hillary. And not only conservatives resent her. It's got to do with her history, her behavior, her outdated ideology and a host of other things wrong with her. This is why well over half of the Democrat voters in Iowa voted against her. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:42 am American candidates |
|
|
Jamie, do you think Repubs will portray Hillary as the next Stalin in ads... or will they keep quiet on her socialist bent?
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2145
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:45 am American candidates |
|
|
| prezbucky wrote: | | What made (makes) our economy great is our respect for free enterprise -- our expectation of each person to make his own way and the respect we for the rights of individuals to spend/invest their own money as they see fit. Once we start really stealing from productive members of society and giving their money to unproductive members (who choose not to work) -- or since we're already doing that to an extent with the welfare initiatives that are already in place -- we take away the main thing that makes our economy great. |
A European, with socialism burned into his brain, would probably take that as meaning that American conservatives don't believe in providing for the poor and less fortunate. That's not what it means. Americans provide far more in private charity than the people of any country in Europe, and it's been statistically demonstrated that American conservatives give far more money, time and labor to help the poor than American leftists do.
I'm just trying to clarify this, because often Europeans think that if the government doesn't provide something then nobody provides it. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:46 am American candidates |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Hillary may get the nomination no matter what, but the reason Obama won in Iowa was that so many people hate Hillary so much. |
Of course you can say they dislike Hillary. However, they might as well ask themselves this question: Why exactly is it that Hilary Clinton is still able to promote her ideas despite her history, her behavior and a host of other things wrong with her? Maybe there is something wrong with our system as well as us when it allows people like Hilary Clinton to gain such a level of popularity?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7377
Location: EU
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 0:55 am American candidates |
|
|
jamie, yeah
conservatives do give more than liberals... in this country, at least
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2145
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:14 am American candidates |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Hillary may get the nomination no matter what, but the reason Obama won in Iowa was that so many people hate Hillary so much. |
Of course you can say they dislike Hiliary. However, they might as well ask themselves this question: Why exactly is it that Hilary Clinton is still able to promote her ideas despite her history, her behavior and a host of other things wrong with her? Maybe there is something wrong with our system as well as us when it allows people like Hilary Clinton to gain such a level of popularity? |
I think you're deceived by the incomplete news sources. Hillary is not that popular, and her ideas are quite UNpopular. If you watched CNN or read the New York Times, you'd think she was quite popular, but those media outlets don't represent the thinking of most of the American people, or necessarily of reality. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:22 am American candidates |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | A European, with socialism burned into his brain, would probably take that as meaning that American conservatives don't believe in providing for the poor and less fortunate. That's not what it means. Americans provide far more in private charity than the people of any country in Europe, and it's been statistically demonstrated that American conservatives give far more money, time and labor to help the poor than American leftists do.
I'm just trying to clarify this, because often Europeans think that if the government doesn't provide something then nobody provides it. |
Hi Jamie,
I think the idea of providing for the poor and less fortunate is as old as mankind. Americans provide far more in private charity than Europeans because our systems are slightly different while the level of social security is about the same in both systems. In Europe "charity" is more institutionalized and yes, the governments of many European countries are responsible for providing a certain level of social security for its people while in America this job is done by privately run organizations. However, before social security became institutionalized in Europe, there had to be "private individuals" who promoted the entire idea and created the government institutions which would provide the social systems. And for "government run charity" to function, there have to be many private individuals who monitor, maintain and fund these government organizations. So in the end, Europeans give as much to the poor and less fortunate as Americans. They just do through slightly different systems and it's difficult to tell which is better or worse.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7377
Location: EU
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:25 am American candidates |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | I think you're deceived by the incomplete news sources. Hillary is not that popular, and her ideas are quite UNpopular. If you watched CNN or read the New York Times, you'd think she was quite popular, but those media outlets don't represent the thinking of most of the American people, or necessarily of reality. |
Well, apparently Hillary Clinton is popular enough in the US to be hated by so many Americans as you put it.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7377
Location: EU
|
|
| Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:33 am American candidates |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | And why didn't you put the word "alleged" before any of the other adjectives?) |
Probably because I’m from Europe. Here, liberalism has a positive connotation and socialism is usually considered a minor fault in character by most people.
| Quote: | | I think a lot of Europeans don't even understand the issues here, because your political right is our political center, and real conservatism sounds to people there as if it comes from somewhere past the edge of the earth. |
That is probably correct. It is probably also fair to say that most Europeans associate “America’s real conservatism” with McCarthyism, nuclear armament, ignorance of Kyoto protocols, oil families running a nation and wars sanctioned by deliberate misinformation on weapons of mass destruction (or the potential threat/ capability of producing them). Our real political right is usually persecuted by the intelligence services (unless they form a power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland, that is).
Hence,
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | real conservatism sounds to people [in Europe] as if it comes from somewhere past the edge of the earth. |
is true.
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | The rest of those adjectives are applied to Bush 43 by the radical leftist media (the BBC, CNN and most of the German press are leftist), but they are not applied to Bush by his responsible opponents. |
Labelling the BBC and CNN leftist puts FOX right in the middle. But isn’t the middle usually thought to be neutral and impartial?
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | all your reporting on the US is slanted left, stuck in the '60s. |
Well, yes – if real conservatism is a bog and you’re right in the middle then you’d probably think so.
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Basically, Kerry was part of an Eastern political class that looks down on the ordinary people -- especially those in the South and in the interior of the country -- and on people who do not work in the government or nonprofit sectors. |
I get the pictures. Hard-working family men can inherit whatever they want unless they wear cowboy boots and put them on dining room tables on diplomatic receptions. I know this statement of mine may sound a bit defiant or strong-willed, but theories simplifying complex political situations as a result of backward-stuck-in-the-60s-or-70s thinking don't bear witness to insightful political views either.
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | One of my American friends who stayed behind in Europe calls his media environment there "a 24-hour propaganda bath". |
One of my American friends answered my question as to why he voted for Bush a second time by saying “I don’t know, man, whenever I see him on TV I have the feeling I can trust the guy.” Apparently, watching NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX can have an effect on voters.
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Especially France needs policies like those Sarkozy proposes, but it's questionable that they'll let it happen. |
I’d love to see France solving their social unrest. It’d be nice to see societies grow up and implement effective educational schemes. And it’d be nice to be able to walk through banlieus at night knowing that it’s safe because all the kids will have to go to work in the morning.
_________________
Test of English as a Foreign Language
TOEFL Preparation & TOEFL Vocabulary
Learn more: How to Become an English Teacher |
|
Ralf
Language Coach
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 1434
Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
|
|
| New Year's Celebration | Do you eat any food that explodes? |
