Awol Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Good luck to you. The more so since I've got this twinge in my back when I move in a certain way... Dude, suicide is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Dude, suicide is not the answer. Ha ha, yes, I walked into that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 After all that stuff about Florida, hanging chads and Jeb Bush fixing the election for brother George a few years back, I was impressed to see that Mr Romney has cut out the middle man, and extended his influence far beyond one mere state, by the simple expedient of buying the company making the machines used to count the votes. That should do the trick. Now if Iran or Cuba or Venezuela allowed something like this, imagine the harsh words the US would hurl at them for undermining democracy, being a corrupt banana republic, and the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 After all that stuff about Florida, hanging chads and Jeb Bush fixing the election for brother George a few years back, I was impressed to see that Mr Romney has cut out the middle man, and extended his influence far beyond one mere state, by the simple expedient of buying the company making the machines used to count the votes. That should do the trick. Now if Iran or Cuba or Venezuela allowed something like this, imagine the harsh words the US would hurl at them for undermining democracy, being a corrupt banana republic, and the rest. At least there's some good news. He intends to make a complete foreign policy U-turn: "We can't kill our way out of this mess." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Why do Americans - including both Romney and Obama (and the moderator) - feel the need to put their grubby hands into the Middle East anyway? Oil? Israel? Why not just adopt Woodrow Wilson's policy and say "Eh, **** it, this isn't worth it?" I don't like the idea of superpowers deciding which leaders are in power in other countries. Freedom, hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 They argument would be if they have no presence in the region then there is nothing to stop a whole region becoming under the control of a totalitarian regime. For a while this worked, with the US supporting dictators and the like, but recently the US has lost its grip and we are looking at the results. Which also explains the deliberation over Syria; no one is sure whether or not to get involved because if the guns we give them end up in the hands of yet another Muslim Brotherhood government, then those guns could very well be pointed in Israels direction in the very near future. So, yes, I can see why some would argue the US (and the West) should GTFO, but the situation isn't as black & white as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 Why do Americans - including both Romney and Obama (and the moderator) - feel the need to put their grubby hands into the Middle East anyway? Oil? Israel? Why not just adopt Woodrow Wilson's policy and say "Eh, **** it, this isn't worth it?" I don't like the idea of superpowers deciding which leaders are in power in other countries. Freedom, hmm You answered your own question - Israel, oil. And as for meddling superpowers, it's been happening since the dawn of civilisation. Self-interest rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 You answered your own question - Israel, oil. And as for meddling superpowers, it's been happening since the dawn of civilisation. Self-interest rules. Yes, but the economy is weak and yet they're still talking about something that doesn't contribute to the budget, but takes out from it. Obviously both candidates are aware that the election's really about the economy, as evidenced by the fact that half of the "foreign policy" debate was about the economy, but that just begs the question as to why they don't just outright say that they will put America first by withdrawing all military interference in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 They're putting America first by entangling themselves in the Middle East, in their view. America is a global superpower, the only global superpower, and it's in their interest to maintain an influence in the region to guarentee the stability of the region in their favour, both to protect a supply of oil, and to prevent as far as possible a crisis that can meddle with things worldwide to the detriment of everyone, which as a nation with their economic power would adversely affect them. People say when America sneezes the world catches a cold - it works the other way too. To allow the uneasy, 'stable instability' if you will (I've made this allegory before but it's quite accurate - the Middle East is a region held in a kind of status quo by the efforts of mnay parties trying to pull it in different directions and none really winning the pull) to break would be to America's enormous detriment. Hence they place considerable effort in maing sure the Middle East doesn't change too much away from their desires. They would do the same in the Pacific, arguably they do although because the PAcific region is far more stable they are able to simply maintain a presence as a reminder and a precaution. An America, in 2012, that leaves the Middle East alone, is an America that slips from it's perch further. It's not nice, but it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 I just realised I was asking why America doesn't do what Britain did in the post-war years. Can't believe I missed that initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 I just realised I was asking why America doesn't do what Britain did in the post-war years. Can't believe I missed that initially. Vastly different scenarios. Britain post WW2 was pretty much completely broken, it had taken an absolutely enormous brunt of the effort in WW2 for it's size, and had been undermined throughtout the early 20th century by the US, in it's isolationist role and growing exponentially, outdoing Britain at it's own market dominance game. You can think of Britain in the wars as a house with it's foundations being undermined by the US and it's walls being hammered by war first and struggle for independence of the colonies second. Britain post WW2 soldiers on for a while trying to keep it's influence around the world going but it can't do it, especially as Britain is far more entwined with the running of these territories than the US is today. The US doesn't really 'run' anywhere, Britain was directly governing vast parts of the globe and was struggling in it's ability to do that, having been embroiled in a hugely damaging conflict (it's almost difficult to understand the extent of the strain WW2 puts on the UK and it's Empire, especially following so soon after WW1) and facing uprisings and conflicts in the territories it had (given increased desire for independence through the acknowledgement of the sacrifice that they had made in the name of the UK, as well as noticing the lessened interest Britain was able to show in these countries whilst it fought, and also in places like India through education - Gandhi is a good example). The US, today, exerts influence on most of the globe but doesn't often directly get it's hands dirty, and isn't anywhere near the strain that Britain itself under in the post war years. Britain post war basically had no choice but to retreat in it's powers, America isn't anywhere near that yet. Ironically if it did make a conscious decision to pull away from the world now, it would be more likely to find itself in the position that it had to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Anyone notice how Romney always insists on saying "When I'm President" rather than "If I'm President..."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 If you can't convince yourself, then how are you going to convince the voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 Anyone notice how Romney always insists on saying "When I'm President" rather than "If I'm President..."? They always do that. It gives an impression of confidence, which might be enough to sway some into voting for him, and also inevitability, which may garner a few more votes from people thinking 'Well, he seems sure, probably means he's sure of a win, might as well back the winner'. I personally find it arrogant but I'd wager more people see it as confidence than arrogance, so he's nothing to lose in saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 The "When I'm prez" thing is a salesman's technique: You get your victim to imagine themselves having bought the product. It's like making love - to a beautiful woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 The one I find annoying is Romney saying "Candidate Obama" as opposed to President - but again, all psychological tricks -oooh hes not President, he's only a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Quick guide to the US electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 With the race looking to be extremely tight, there is actually a scenario where you could end up with Romney/Biden as Prez and Vice Prez, which I was actually unaware of before know Welcome to the Romney-Biden Administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Mitt Romney reaffirmed his support for a Republican senate candidate who said in a debate last night that pregnancy due to rape is God's will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Mitt Romney reaffirmed his support for a Republican senate candidate who said in a debate last night that pregnancy due to rape is God's will... I thought I caught in the news this morning that Romney had supported him in the past, but after the rape comment, released a statement saying he does not endorse that view. Might have misheard though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts