for the poll trackers....
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
My favorite was "This President has been on the wrong side of nearly every situation in the Arab world." Apparently the right side would've been with Mubarak and Gaddafi.
they are talking to the primary voters. so as silly as it all seems to us, it makes perfect sense for them to say such things....but unfortunately Cain and Bachmann actually are totally clueless.
that is what is scary.
that is what is scary.
There's absolutely nothing genuine in this clip. Cain is basically improvising something he knows little or nothing about.
True but it falls inline with RedKaos warped view of the world so its all good, even when its bad.
Its two weeks old, so probably already seen.
But what the feck is he doing here
But what the feck is he doing here
Its not unusual to find posters with warped world views, so long as they can make a credible argument as to why they hold such positions. Nonsensical oneliners don't do the trick.
Ohfeck.
I think he means to say we shouldn't have let the Arabs handle their own revolutions, we should have gone in and done it ourselves, to make sure the new leaders had our interests at heart.
I wonder if he's even glad that those people are out from under the thumb of sadistic tyrants.
Oh I'd agree that Herman Cain usually has no idea on what he's talking about, but what he's described there - i.e they were on the wrong 'side' of the Arab spring is really what the genuine US position was in regards to it.
The only thing he was wrong about it was that Obama wasn't actually on the wrong side, he was always secretly trying to consolidate Mubarak and Saleh ensuring those revolutions would have failed. The only difference between him and someone like Cain is that Obama would have cleverly publicly supported the revolutions when they reached the point of no return (which he did in Egypt) whereas Cain would have most likely stupidly denounced them in public which would have been catastrophic for the US's reputation.
The point I was trying to make was with someone like Cain - what you see is what you get in regards to foreign polic. Its not like Obama's empty promises with his Cairo speech and reaching out to the Muslim world etc only to continue the policies of his predecessor. Cain would be honest in claiming that the US doesn't give two hoots about democracy and self-determination in the Middle East (which he did with his rant about how the US 'abandoned' Mubarak and Saleh
)Oh I'd agree that Herman Cain usually has no idea on what he's talking about, but what he's described there - i.e they were on the wrong 'side' of the Arab spring is really what the genuine US position was in regards to it.
The only thing he was wrong about it was that Obama wasn't actually on the wrong side, he was always secretly trying to consolidate Mubarak and Saleh ensuring those revolutions would have failed. The only difference between him and someone like Cain is that Obama would have cleverly publicly supported the revolutions when they reached the point of no return (which he did in Egypt) whereas Cain would have most likely stupidly denounced them in public which would have been catastrophic for the US's reputation.
The point I was trying to make was with someone like Cain - what you see is what you get in regards to foreign polic. Its not like Obama's empty promises with his Cairo speech and reaching out to the Muslim world etc only to continue the policies of his predecessor. Cain would be honest in claiming that the US doesn't give two hoots about democracy and self-determination in the Middle East (which he did with his rant about how the US 'abandoned' Mubarak and Saleh
Yes i know what you meant. However, your criticism of Obama doesn't take into account the systemic pressures he faces as the leader of the world's only hegemon, to preserve U.S. relationships with nations supporting US interests for as long as they are sustainable. When conditions become unsustainable, he should have and did, make the appropriate comments about the various leaders leaving. At the end of the day, hegemons are in the business of preserving their resource dominance through strategic relationships. That's the nature of the international system and its why states like the US behave as they do. You also didn't factor in the substate domestic factors (cultural, electoral, economic) that are keeping him from making any progress on better relations with the middle east. At the end of the day, its not about Obama, its about the US acting as superpowers are supposed to in a system of anarchic self-help.
But where does this systemic pressure come from - The lobbies? The corporations that fund him? The US is currently at odds with the rest of the world in regards to foreign policy - its blocking of the Palestinian statehood application in the UN is just a recent example of how they've gone against the tide of the world for god knows what reason.
Prior to being elected Obama had promised to alleviate the US's reputation as a warmongering, aggressive super power but he only seems to be maintaining the status quo. Yes, he's intelligently discreet and maintains a nice public face when it comes to the Arab spring for example, but behind closed doors he's still the very same hegemon his predecessor was.
From what I've seen, the next election is unlikely to cause any radical change in all that. Obama will continue his current stances if re-elected, whereas the Republicans offer no more than apeshit, crazy loonies who will probably see it as their duty to drag the US into half a dozen more wars in their potential first terms as president. Unless of course if Ron Paul is elected....which seems as likely as Bill O'Reilly becoming a new born Muslim.
A part of me secretly wants someone like Cain or Perry to be elected, so the inevitable disaster that will be their presidential term in office would catalyse a radical revision of US politics after people realise what a fecked up, futile system they have.
The systemic pressure comes from the U.S.'s role as the only hegeomon in the international system of states. If you apply structural realism as a way to predict state behavior - then states play power politics with one another as a means to consolidate their relative power. Obama's choices are constrained to preserve the US's material dominance first and foremost. The other things you cite (lobbies, corporations, etc) are all substate domestic factors that are affecting state policies from within, whereas the systemic contraints of anarchy in the absence of an enforceable world government are causing the the US to preserve its material position at the international level.
Eisenhower wasn't joking when he warned Americans about the unsettling growth in influence the 'military industrial complex' has on the political system. Obama has legislation he wants and needs to pass if he's going have much hope of getting reelected, so he has to work with the senators and representatives in office. Look how much stick he gets already, imagine if he actually tried to really change things; it wouldn't be allowed, he would be completely ostracized.
The Karl Rove PR machine threatened every senator and representative with becoming the victims of an intense campaign to paint them as unpatriotic following 9/11 if they didn't back the Patriot Act. They didn't even read it before they voted on it, they were given a summary. The climate in politics has only become more hostile since them.
I've been very interested in studying the techniques of the Nazis in Germany since then.
The Karl Rove PR machine threatened every senator and representative with becoming the victims of an intense campaign to paint them as unpatriotic following 9/11 if they didn't back the Patriot Act. They didn't even read it before they voted on it, they were given a summary. The climate in politics has only become more hostile since them.
I've been very interested in studying the techniques of the Nazis in Germany since then.
The gift that keeps on giving. He might as well just proceed by saying "I know feck-all about anything outside of America but I'll save you some cash on your taxes if you vote for me. We'll let the adults run foreign policy."
The presidential debates would have been perfect with palin in the mix.
She could probably still beat all of these current twats.
True but props to her, she realized she couldn't beat Obama. These thick cnuts are wasting their time.
To be fair, so could we.
....even with your horrid Welsh accent mate.
I think Cain is an Obama agent...
Hey, you've read my posts - I'd probably lose a debate with any of the Palins, including Track, Trump, Twig, Twonk and also Bristol.
Hey, you've read my posts - I'd probably lose a debate with any of the Palins, including Track, Trump, Twig, Twonk and also Bristol.
course you will lose...staring at those bristols.
he doesn't know anything inside of America either. He committed a real sin in the eyes of conservatives by saying he supports collective bargaining. That along with his "stance" on abortion rights.
honestly did not think they could not get anyone dumber than Palin...
I was so wrong.
I was so wrong.
What really gets to me is that some people actually think he (and a few of the others) are capable of running the country.
I'm interested in hearing about how Reagan was. He came along before I followed politics. How did he compare to these idiots? I know he was a great president but how did he do before then in the primaries etc? Was he ready? Did he know China had nukes?
This needs to be shown
He was a great president to the republicans.
He started the downhill slide we are in...many used to think he was an idiot too. you should watch the 'rubber thinggies' jokes on British tv..hilarious. but in comparison to this bunch he comes across as a responsible guy.
that really speaks for the direction of the GOP.
Are you taking the piss? Reagan was the first of the puppet presidents - simply a tool of the money and interests that funded him to get elected.
He was a great president to the republicans.
many used to think he was an idiot too. you should watch the 'rubber thinggies' jokes on British tv..hilarious. but in comparison to this bunch he comes across as a responsible guy.
that really speaks for the direction of the GOP.
Yep...he was lampooned mercilessly on Spitting Image but is an intellectual compared to Cain or Perry. The smartest presidents were probably Nixon & Carter....Carter was a nuclear engineer FFS!, Clinton was the ultimate though, highly intelligent and incredibly charismatic...just a perfect combination.
I wish he could run again.
Clinton was a total politician. Did he not sign the law that caused sub-prime mess we are in?
Still he would have been better than any republican.
I love Carter, but the American public could not accept his honesty.
Obama inherited the biggest mess since FDR. I think he will win the election handily and do well in his second term.
Regan, who built half a trillion dollars in nukes we didn't need, that we're now paying the builders to take apart. Still pay the interest.
Reagan himself agreed to scrap every single nuke at Reykjavik! Imagine him explaining that to the party today.
Very interesting from Ron Paul's page.... An actual realistic plan to slice one million dollars off the U.S. Budget.
RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA" | Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA" | Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
A million
a million...that just made me think of the Austin Powers movie...
- Status