U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Analogous? Compare the respective GDPs today of countries "occupied" by the US with those benevolently guided by Moscow for starters.


It's thanks to US protection that the face off never took place militarily in Europe, though the western bloc was heavily influenced politically by the USSR, and instead was played out through proxy wars and conflicts over influence in other places around the world like Asia, South America or Africa.

Again, it's a shame that we need to cover these basics here. I would assume that even a GCSE in history would be enough for you to avoid coming out with stuff like that...

Come on, JW, haven't you heard that a la colinmanning, that if they didn't study it at university then they can't be expected to know it (in the case of knowledge) or have mastered it (in the case of skills or abilities).

No, I am a convincement Quaker who was brought up protesting against the US Nuclear presence at Holy Loch - a presence that was humiliatingly requested by the odious Harold MacMillan. I have never seen the Cold War as inevitable. WW2 surely showed the world that capitalism and communism could cohabit? The Russian and US presence across Europe just made us a potential shooting range for their ideological war.

Although you have made your grounds for your viewpoint clear (much as disagree with your opinon) it is absolutely incorrect to see the US and USSR fighting against a common enemy as an example of "cohabitation between capitalism and communism". Additionally, you really should read something about Harry Truman and other US presidents and their view of communism- perhaps then you will see that the US abhorrence of the Soviet Union on moral grounds had a lot to do with the US willingness to defend Western Europe and to undermine communism in Eastern Europe.

You may also want to review the USSR actions in 1945 with regards to what became its satellite states and then ask yourself what would have happened to Western Europe if the US had left after Germany's surrender.

the truth is that Europe was crushed by WW2 and both allied and axis nations were in the weakest position they could have been in. The undisputed victors of WW2 were the USA and the USSR who both took free rein to carve up Europe. It may have been inevitable but it should not mean that we as Europeans should be grateful for it.

Nonsense. Europe wasn't 'carved' up. The US relationship to Western Europe and the USSR's relationship to Eastern Europe were dissimilar enough that I wonder if you ever so much watched the news back in the 20th century, much less read about it somewhere. And don't tell me I was there man! I've heard enough of that from people who were stone cold ignorant, back in the day as well as now, so save it.

If the US carved up and dominated Western Europe, then just prove it. A few simple sentences should do the trick if it was that easy.

@ryhntyntyn, the red threat had hung over Europe from 1919 onwards and yet the frgreat powers of Europe did not go running to the USA begging them to station military, air and naval forces on European soils. Then post-45 with France, Germany and the UK utterly bankrupted by war we suddenly do. Go figure.

Obama takes in $52 million in June (thats about 30mil more than McCain). Pretty much says it all doesn't it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ain-869681.html

Hari is dreadfully wishy washy sometimes but right on the money here.

McCain had as his one of his top right hand men the guy who brought Enron and the mortgage crisis issues down on the heads of Americans?

I did not know that elections were based on how much money the candidates can actually raise. Mind you, they have to raise a fair bit of cash to pay all of those celebrities to come and join them on stage at their "rallies"

You must be really hiding in the bushes not to know that fund raising rules politics. In the US more than in any country I'm aware of.

Depart from your computer and venture out into the world. It will/may confront you with reality.

Happy trails

No shit z-man! Really? Well well well well well. Who would have thunk it huh?

It all just flies straight over your head doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Of course, as always, it is a bit more complicated than a party hack/rabid supporter presents it to be:


Although I would be surprised if McCain does outraise Obama, since he will be accepting public financing, he doesn't necessarily have to.

BTW, eurovol, are you angry with your candidate for his about-face on telco immunity? Or did you change your mind on that issue when he changed his?

MT, I would hardly say that Obama is allergic to the finance industry's donations:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

Then there is that below-market interest rate he received on his own home loan.

Yes it does and your rabid anti everybody that dares to not agree with you is fucking annoying. As is your assuming you know what the fuck I think in the first place. Contrary to the old saying, it just makes an ass out of you.

Hey Conq. WHATEVR gave you the idea I'm a fan of Obama?

He talked a bit to the left and is slithering to the center. (sic)
Social democratic politicians have been doing that since social democracy was invented by Germany in the late 1800s.

eurovol, if you can't grasp the significance of cash on hand, I feel sorry for you. Then again, it's easier for an allegedly brilliant mind such as yours to insult someone rather than answer someone's points. Looks like Obama and the DNC have $92 million on hand. But I don't pretend that says it all.

My view on what you believe (where stated as fact, not opinion, or speculation) is based on your own TT posts. As for what you think, I would be curious to know how you feel about Obama voting for telecom immunity and him opining that child abusers should get the death penalty, especially given that he once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. You have previously stated your opposition to both the death penalty and telco immunity.

You might want to look at Obama's cash on hand and fundraising ability. Your little two step means nothing and it is easier for you to attack people and twist their words instead of actually paying attention and discussing things without throwing a tantrum.

I have previously stated my opposition to the death penalty and already stated that Obama and I don't agree on everything.

I have not stated diddly on telco immunity, but have bashed Bush for spying on Americans. Those are two separate issues, but the word twister you are I guess you will just put 2 and 2 together to get 5 like you want.

Take your trolling elsewhere. I am going back to ignoring you now.

You might want to retract the bolded claim:


Now, eurovol, what lawsuit could you possibly have been talking about in the above post other than civil lawsuits against telcos, the very lawsuits that the FISA bill gave telcos immunity from?


Um, I have (see above) and keep in mind the RNC and DNC can spend money on behalf of their candidate if they don't coordinate it. The Republicans have their donors for the presidential campaign give to the RNC rather than solely to McCain because donations to the RNC have a much higher cap- over $28,000 v.s. (I believe) $2,300.

No need to twist your words, eurovol- you make your own sweeping statements, so live with the criticism of your comments. If you need a lesson in twisting, I am sure Crouchene would give an excellent one, if his own posting is any indication.


Wasn't so hard to say that, now was it?


Just can't stand a few tough questions and a real discussion on the issues can you?

We'll let's look at that a bit more. Here is the same email you got from Obama's campaign manager:


Now, I wonder if you are going to accuse Obama's campaign manager of "twisting words" and " a two-step"?

Obama had $43 million and the DNC $3.9 million at the end of May, and McCain and the RNC $31.6 and $53.5 milllion, respectively. I'll let you, eurovol, figure out the significance of these figures in relation to those at the end of June I posted above (which are more favorable to Obama than the Plouffe figure) especially in light of Obama outraising McCain by $30 million in June.

Bla, bla, bla. I want answers to these questions from at least one of you crafty political types out there, especially EUROVOL.

I think we still need to go back to where all the bad blood started, the 2000 election. There is a new movie out called "Recount" and I think it was even shown here in Munich. If Al Gore had truly won Florida in 2000 then wouldn't it stand to reason that Kerry would have carried the state in 2004? Wouldn't all the "disenfranchised" Democrats have wanted to avenge the 2000 election? Isn't it funny that when Bush won Florida AGAIN in 2004 the conspiracy theorists switched the claims of voter fraud and "disenfranchisement" to Ohio? Did Kerry really win Florida in 2004? If so, why didn't anyone in the Democratic party say anything about it?

Another question. Didn't the Democratic party win the 2006 mid term elections, resulting in the control of both houses of congress, based on promises to end the war in Iraq? When exactly did that happen? It's been two years and I haven't heard anything. And isn't it interesting that since Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination his rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq has already started to change to a "hold on there, not so fast" approach? First he said if he became president they'd all be out within 30 or 60 days. IF he does become president I think a lot of you are going to be very disappointed and realize you've all been played the FOOL. I hope he wins just to see that! However, WE have to elect him now. If we don't it'll just prove to the rest of the world how evil and racist America and Americans truly are, just read the posts on this thread from all the non-Americans.

Oh yeah, one more thing. If you're not American stop acting like you know anything about America or American politics. I assure you you don't even if you did spend two weeks traveling around and saw the Grand Canyon and Hoover dam. I'm so sick of Europeans claiming that Americans don't know anything about the world, yet as soon as they open their mouths about the U.S. it becomes quite clear they can only regurgitate BBC propaganda.

15 posts and the owls already sailed away with the pussycat.

See, ya know what Slow brain, i am openly ignorant of American politics but unfortunately what you do affects the world currently and i therefore feel qualified to voice my opinion.

Hey, that's democracy in action on an expats board made up of lots of nationalities, if that's ok by you?

what a nasty bitch-fest this forum is. you all need to smoke some dubeage.

everyone is so intent on telling everyone else that they don't know shit from apple butter about whatever it is they're trying to say. Why is it so hard for people to realize there is more than one perspective on any given topic, and it's not black & white.

the internet sucks now that everyone can use it. And once guys like McCain learn how to use computers, the net is gonna suck even more.

Let me get this straight, you entered a forum on presidential politics and then you're shocked that it's a "nasty bitch fest"? What utopian rock have you been living under? Then you show your elitist side by complaining that anyone can use the internet now. Next you'll be lamenting the fact that non land owners now have the right to vote.

The other thing Europeans need to stop doing is constantly claiming that the ENTIRE world is one giant victim of U.S. foreign policy. I know there are a lot of one way streets here but come on.

Tell it like it is, Slow Cal! You sound like an angry beast, but you speak the truth I do believe that the Anti-American sentiments in Europe (and Germany in particular) are sometimes misplaced. Not only are American expats the least likely to have voted for or supported the policies of Bush, they are also least likely to personally behave in a way that reflects arrogance and insensitivity towards world issues. The first clue: they are living **outside** of America! Taking frustrations out on random Americans or expecting for them to serve as diplomats is a sure way to give a poor image of your country, your curiosity (to learn the truth) and your intelligence.

These days, it seems that as far as international relations is concerned, the different media entities appear to be spreading opinion-tinged news, which operates the same way that rumors do. I know that America is very, very far from perfect. But at the same time, the same way that normal German people are not Nazis (though they are assumed to be by ignorant people around the world), Americans are not all little George Bushes, looking to create conflict and destruction everywhere.

If we assume that sometimes some people get limited or biased information, how do you think that we can better understand the current elections (and each other)? Any ideas?

Ok Conqy boy, you dug up some old post that I had forgotten about. Still, the emphasis was and still is on Bush breaking the law and people having the ability to get justice when the government refuses to give them justice (Bush refuses justice, not Obama). This is where I believe Obama is working with what he has got to get to that point of justice. He tried to get the immunity removed, but it was a losing proposition. It doesn't stop him as President from going after illegal actions as head law enforcement officer of the land. In fact, you could argue that giving the telco's some degree of immunity will actually force them to comply with the investigations to come and they will come. You also have to remember that the people need the government and former employees as witnesses to any trial which would be a losing proposition even if they did sue (post Bush it will be everyone for themselves and taking the 5th will be common) and then there is the very real problem of proving damage, but you have to remember that any lies by the telco will remove their immunity shield pronto. The telcos would probably be better off from a legal standpoint without the immunity thing. Then they could refuse to answer or comply due to threats of incrimination and lawsuits. Now they don't have that. So no, that one part of the FISA bill doesn't upset me cause I see justice coming down on Bush and Co.

I also see the Kucinich and Conyers actions getting little notice, yet their hearings are closing in on Bush and Cheney fairly quickly with some damning testimony.

well it has been kind of true for the last 30 years or more. But I wouldn't call the world the 'victim' of the US. Some of the influence has been very positive. It is just hard to find much in the Bush presidency that has had a positive effect on the world - which is why the popularity of the USA has plummetted so much here. That will recover though and as I noted in this thread there are already very positive signs of a thaw

It's very convenient that Scotland will never be tested with regard to geopolitics because it's just too small to effect anything, I'm not even sure if Scotland has its own military (by the way, love the accent, no joke). And since western Europe relied on the U.S. to defend it against the Soviet Union for 45 years they were able to divert more tax revenue to social programs. So the Europeans had no problem asking the U.S. military, under the guise of NATO, to bomb the hell out of Belgrade ten years ago when it suited their needs! Once again, how convenient. And I hate to mention it, that was Clinton. But now we're the evil doers in Iraq. As the krauts say, Na ja, was soll's!

This quote is so revealing. If something is old and has to be "dug up" it's like it never really existed. This is why there is so much re-writing of history going on these days. Stalin was very found of that practice too. But this quote reveals two things. 1. According to Eurovol the truth is transitory and doesn't count anymore if enough time has elapsed or if the original statement is no longer popular and 2. what he really objects to is getting called out by someone. "How dare you hold me accountable for what I said with great vigor at some time long ago!"

Scotland is presently in a union with England and supplies more than its share by population size of the UK armed forces. The UK has a global influence through the Commonwealth that has a profound and mostly positive effect on geopolitics these days (though there is much that was negative in the past). The Uk is in turn a member state of the EU - which as a bloc is richer and more populous than the USA. If the EU could get its act together it could have a greater effect in the world as a second superpower but sadly that looks increasingly unlikely.


the ignorance of that remark is quite astonishing. While Germany may have had its armed forces disbanded, it was divided into four sectors and the US only ran one of those with the UK, France and Russia running the other three. The UK was a founder member of NATO along with the Netherlands and several other western European nations and cooperated with the USA in the defence of Western Europe. Several countries were NOT members of NATO and had no US troop involvement including Spain, Portugal, France, Greece etc. I have said above that I deplore the weakness of Europe in the immediate post war period that meant we could be bent to the wills of either the USA or Russia. But to present Europe as if we were just a bunch of helpless nobodies savedand protected by the iron fist of the US military is a distortion too far.


actually numbskull, it was the UK that persuaded the US and participated just as much as the USA in the military actions that followed.


god, its like Saving Private Ryan all over again: you really do seem to imagine that the only agent in the world is the USA. While I deplore the fact that we were involved, the UK was a willing and very active participant in the Iraq conflict contributing more per head of population in troop numbers and resources than even the USA.

Now we're in a pissing contest, love it! The trump card is simple. If, at any time between 1945 and the end of the cold war, the U.S. had communicated to the Soviet Union that America was leaving Europe and would not respond to an attack, the only thing that would have hastened Moscow's complete and utter domination of Europe would have been logistics. The red army would have rolled over any resistance like a steamroller rolling over an armadillo on interstate 4 between Orlando and Tampa/St. Pete!

Ignorance and simplistic beliefs rolled into one, excellent stuff.

Yeah, facts are nasty little buggers, aren't they? I've noticed that the Toytown community isn't too keen on or used to Americans who actually defend the values and actions of our nation. Well, I for one will never sell out my country with the hopes of being accepted or liked by a bunch of snotty Europeans who at every turn will rationalize away America's commitment to Europe for the better part of 45 years, from the Berlin Airlift to the Marshal Plan to operation Chrome Dome. In case you have never heard of it, operation Chrome Dome was a U.S. Air force operation whereby for ten years straight (middle of the 1950's to the middle of the 1960's) U.S. strategic bombers were constantly in the air ready to strike Russia if any move was made against Europe. Given the state of Soviet air defenses at the time, these bomber crews new their chances of survival were almost zero, yet they did it anyway because America was dedicated to the defense of Europe at all costs! Period, end of story.

I'm with Slowcal all the way! What the hell were you doing on the left-coast anyway?

there goes any credibility for Slowcal then ...

You'd probably be happy in Kalifornia, Bell. Like San Francisco!

Total and utter bollocks, i mix with more septics than Brits and we enjoy mutual respect and indulge in something called banter.

I appreciate you don't understand the concept but i'm sure Google or Wiki will help in your education.

new are you? You won't last long with attitudes like that

@bluedave - WELL SAID!

What a great quote! These Euro-pe-ons can be pretty snotty and even snooty!

Thanks for illustrating my point for me. Agree with us or leave huh?

By the way BadBob, it's a myth that California is a liberal stronghold, ONLY San Francisco! Up until 1992 California always voted the "right" way.

They're pretty conservative in San Diego.

nah! didn't say you should leave

just figure you won't make many friends that's all

Ok Cali-boy. What were you doing in these mighty fine years of service to Europe while your brothers were up in the skies protecting freedom?

I know. I lived there for three years. Best spot in the country. By the way, in case you didn't know George S. Patton and Ronald Reagan were both from Cali

Knew that. But I actually think Reagan was born in the Mid-West.

Wasn't born yet.

Can you feel the lurve?

I think BadBob has scored at last.

Best weather in the country is San Diego. Used to work there. Spent some time up in Monterey/Carmel...boring.