While We Wait: Part 4

[jeps]

Pity you're a Canadian.

Yeah, but the issue I'm talking about has A LOT to do with the states, and that directly affects me (Israel). Sure, can't vote, but I have convinced some american friends which way to vote.

EDIT: and NK, carleton U or Carleton College? (Ottawa or Minnesota?)

EDIT 2: I am not a one-issue voter in Canada. At all. But since I CAN'T vote in the states, the thing that affects me most is Israel (other than NAFTA), so that is what sways my opinion. Therefore I have no qualms about being one-issue in THIS election. And I opposed MPP because it would have let in one-issue parties, which IN CANADA I hate.

EDIT 3: je veux que vous n'oubliez jamais le subjonctif. oh god, how i hated that at first, but once you get it, its rather simple.

 

[Symphony D.]

which IN CANADA I hate.

You know, the rest of the world really should be thankful the vast bulk of Americans suck at geography and paying attention in general. It's really annoying when people from other countries go out of their way to say "Well, I wish so-and-so was President, because it'd benefit me and I don't give a damn what happens inside the country," and I would love for all those guilty of so doing to get a taste of their own medicine with Americans doing the same in reverse. Anti-Americanism would double overnight but it'd be a beautiful thing to watch.

For example: I'd love to see Bloc Québécois win the day and secede! Because then Canada could very well shatter from economic instability and the best option for most of it would be to submit for American statehood! We could assimilate the 25 million or so of you remaining pretty easily. That's what's best for me because my bottom-line goes up and it's the only issue in Canada I really know/care about/think impacts me! It's ridiculous to think that way.

Europeans tend to be particularly awful at this and they don't even make sense when they're doing it (most of them support Obama), which is hilarious because an interventionist President like Bush was pretty much the best thing they could hope for (ie: America spends all the money "fixing" all the problems, loses all the people, prestige, etc., does poorly at PR letting them exercise independence by rallying anti-American sentiment, so on) and a Democrat is the kind of candidate most likely to tell them to go stuff themselves when a real problem does come up.

 

[Supermath]

EDIT 3: je veux que vous n'oubliez jamais le subjonctif. oh god, how i hated that at first, but once you get it, its rather simple.

I remember learning the Subjunctive in French. It was not fun.

 

[North King]

EDIT: and NK, carleton U or Carleton College? (Ottawa or Minnesota?)

Minnesota, alas.

 

[jeps]

i completely see your point symph, and acknowledge you are right, and I care more about the american economy than europeans do (it makes the $CAN look good and shopping cheap !!!, but at the same time that hurts our economy due to lost trade), however for me personally Israel is important enough to ignore that for the most part. I dont see Hillary vs Obama as being the difference between economic boom and economic collapse, so I have no qualms changing just because of Israel.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Europeans tend to be particularly awful at this and they don't even make sense when they're doing it (most of them support Obama), which is hilarious because an interventionist President like Bush was pretty much the best thing they could hope for (ie: America spends all the money "fixing" all the problems, loses all the people, prestige, etc., does poorly at PR letting them exercise independence by rallying anti-American sentiment, so on) and a Democrat is the kind of candidate most likely to tell them to go stuff themselves when a real problem does come up.

Oh yeah, european politicans rally anti-american sentiment all the time . America gets to fix the global problems as America spent 40 years making sure the european abilities to effect action were quietened and focused on the soviet union so they have no ability or will to fix aforementioned problems, america made the bed and can now sleep in it . Besides Democrats have historically run better and more stable economies - which is nice for europeans as the US-EU trading system doesn't lend itself to much "They took ur jerbs!" sentiment, and bleeding heart liberals* are going to try to help any humanitarian crisis, which is going to be the only possible threat to europe within the next two US electon cycles.

*American sense of term

 

[sp1023]

North and south depend on your perspective. If you live in Alaska, New York would seems crazy south, and vice versa.

 

[Birdjaguar]

BJ: got diabetes or high blood pressure? Any strokes or heart attacks?

No, no, no, and no.

The above might have been a horrible, horrible faux pas if it were somewhere else and to someone more easily offended.

That said: personally I find that atherosclerosis and/or senility are more pertinent worries in our case.

No and I do drive a blue car, thanks for asking Alex.

"I was born in 1890, joined the military in 1908, served until 1953. It was around 1960 that I became engaged in poems and won my first gold medal, for rowing no less.........."

If only Bird was that cool.

Excuse me! I do wear red cashmire socks and am that cool.

 

[sp1023]

Cashmire socks? Well, its not popular among the young ins, but I know for a fact my grandfather used to or still does, where burgundy red socks.

 

[Symphony D.]

which is going to be the only possible threat to europe within the next two US electon cycles.

Actually, the greatest threat to Europe now and for the foreseeable future is its continuing stunning ability to suck at any and all forms of military action, and that is best rectified by forcing it into battle and making it recognize how terribly it sucks (see: Afghanistan). It already knows on some level (see again NATO failure in Afghanistan, failure of EU Rapid Reaction Force idea, EU/NATO failure to intervene in Kosovo prior to US intervention, NATO as USSR-speed bump) but Europe is generally helpless on the battlefield without America.

Considering America's in a terrible internal state right now that will take literally decades to fix, and it will continue to get worse before it gets better, it's really not a two-term issue, and if Democrats win, start to actually fix the job and thereby keep getting re-elected, focus is going to be at home, not abroad. Short-term that's no big deal.

Longer-term, Europe gets a nice cozy little economy blanket courtesy of Uncle Sam, but if something goes bad somewhere even near their backyard (see again: disintegration of Yugoslavia) they are more or less up the creek without a paddle, because they can't handle it, and quite frankly neither can America (between having our troops distributed willy nilly and having home-focused reformist Presidents).

The humanitarian thing is also a convenient mirage. I didn't see Clinton in Rwanda, he backed out of Somalia real quick, and it took him awhile to get around to Kosovo. Even bleeding-heart liberals are from the school of realpolitik. Well, that is, unless Kucinich somehow gets elected... god forbid.

 

[sp1023]

That, my friend, ( ) will never happen, god forbid.

 

[Thlayli]

The fact that people even ARE complaining in the country with the highest standard of living and continued economic success in recorded human history is a little silly. Recession cycles do occur, and the real problem is correcting America's trade imbalances and preventing her from stagnating via a misplaced reaction against the forces that keep her economy alive.

I believe the Democrats will come into power, but the wonderful brand of Edwardsian anti-globalization economic "theory" that's bumping around Obaman and Clintonista stump speeches doesn't look like an effective idea to me. Hawley-Smoot for the digital age, really, since "rethinking NAFTA" means "killing NAFTA."

Democrat or Republican, low spending free traders improve America's economic position, while high spending protectionists utterly screw it over. Unfortunately, Bush has been a high spending free trader, so the economy has flatlined.

A democratic revolution in China would be excellent for the American economy, particularly if it's a liberal government that begins to raise wages, destroying the WalMart monopoly on cheap imported goods and allowing other corporations (and domestic factory production) a chance to recover. America has the opportunity to lead the world in advanced, environmentally friendly technology. Post-industrial technology. Our automakers are too stupid to realize that if they successfully developed an efficient hydrogen car, along with a hydrogen infrastructure to boot, they'd save themselves from collapse.

EDIT: I mean come ON, the sum theory of Democratic economic policy is, "Let's declare war on the wealthy corporations that have driven our economy since 1890, rather than working with them, while also building obtuse barriers to foreign trade AGAIN, undoing everything that Bill Clinton accomplished."

 

[North King]

I believe the Democrats will come into power, but the wonderful brand of Edwardsian anti-globalization economic "theory" that's bumping around Obaman and Clintonista stump speeches doesn't look like an effective idea to me. Hawley-Smoot for the digital age, really.

Democrat or Republican, low spending free traders improve America's economic position, while high spending protectionists utterly screw it over. Unfortunately, Bush has been a high spending free trader, so the economy has flatlined.

I don't actually think that Clinton or Obama will do too much in terms of protectionism (it's mostly posturing to get the Edwards demographic; note how Obama's been ambivalent towards NAFTA before, and Clinton was... well, Clinton), besides reinforcing restrictions on Chinese goods, and possibly reforming NAFTA -- which wouldn't be too bad. I'd tend to agree that free trade is better, but it helps when the other side is working off of the same rules: hence the need for restrictions on Chinese trade.

A democratic revolution in China would be excellent for the American economy, particularly if it's a liberal government that begins to raise wages, destroying the WalMart monopoly on cheap imported goods and allowing other corporations (and domestic factory production) a chance to recover.

I'd tend to agree. Hopefully we never make quite the same mistake again.

Our automakers are too stupid to realize that if they successfully developed an efficient hydrogen car, along with a hydrogen infrastructure to boot, they'd save themselves from collapse.

Hydrogen's infeasible at the present.

 

[sp1023]

For those that live in the US, who would you support for president, even if you couldn't vote? I would have gone for Edwards, but he dropped out.

 

[Thlayli]

Hydrogen's infeasible at the present.

Yes, and the Moon was infeasible circa Kennedy, but if the U.S. government funded the damn thing, and also offered a 10 billion dollar subsidy to the first automaker to develop and market a hydrogen car, they'd get off their asses and have the thing finished in 5-10 years.

 

[North King]

For those that live in the US, who would you support for president, even if you couldn't vote? I would have gone for Edwards, but he dropped out.

I think the sig says it for me.

Yes, and the Moon was infeasible circa Kennedy, but if the U.S. government funded the damn thing, and also offered a 10 billion dollar subsidy to the first automaker to develop and market a hydrogen car, they'd get off their asses and have the thing finished in 5-10 years.

No, hydrogen technology is physically infeasible at the moment until they design a much better system. This is entirely possible, but an economy running off of hydrogen is a long way away.

I think our best bet on that front is a Democratic president; the only things I strongly dislike about their energy policies are corn ethanol (GAH!) and anti-nuclear power (oh noez, one mostly contained meltdown in half a century!).

 

[sp1023]

I disagree with the nuclear idea. It is too dangerous to have it simply for cars. Until a safer way has been tested with killer robots we should have Nuclear cars, should me. More efficient solar powered cars would be good too. The hydrogen cars may blow up very easily, we must find a better, safer solution, like stronger framework or something.

 

[North King]

I disagree with the nuclear idea. It is too dangerous to have it simply for cars. Until a safer way has been tested with killer robots we should have Nuclear cars, should me. More efficient solar powered cars would be good too. The hydrogen cars may blow up very easily, we must find a better, safer solution, like stronger framework or something.

...What?

Please call back when you're sober.

 

[sp1023]

Well, I can't drink, so techinically, I am never not sober.

Anyways, didn't my talk about car fuel possibilities make any sense to you??

 

[jalapeno_dude]

For those that live in the US, who would you support for president, even if you couldn't vote? I would have gone for Edwards, but he dropped out.

Would have voted for Dodd, but he dropped out. So I voted for Clinton.

Obama, frankly, scares me a little (though not enough that I'll vote for McCain instead)--it seems that he's developing a cult of personality. Worse that that is his non-plan for Iraq, which as far as I can tell consists of withdrawing immediately no matter the consequences. I believe, and will argue, that at this juncture staying in Iraq is less destabilizing to the middle east than pulling out.