Republican Candidates

[Humodour]

I just puked a little in my mouth at the thought of the Republicans. I'm in Costa Rica right now, and honestly, it's pretty difficult to find anybody willing to say a single good word about the US - Including the 53 Australians I am here with.

 

How about the fact that we have a huge common culture, borne from a shared experience of two world wars, economic systems, and thousands if not millions of artworks across film, literature, and the internet. And Americans combine naivety with idealism and a tremendous drive to succeed with being a bit mental, and often naked?

 

I didn't say the US hasn't given the world anything of a value - I just said it's difficult to find anybody willing to say good things about it these days. Probably because the amount of crap and misery they commit and export is beginning to significantly outweigh their redeeming virtues (for example, their internal inaction on, and international diplomatic disruptiveness on global warming).

[Walsingham]

Yeah. I'm sure that the crowds of nutflaps are out boogying around a burning stars and stripes because of the Kyoto agreement.

 

Funny how few anti-Chinese get-downs you see, given they must surely qualify for a bit of misery-iciousness.

[Rosbjerg]

Funny how few anti-Chinese get-downs you see, given they must surely qualify for a bit of misery-iciousness.

 

The dominant culture will always get praise and flak, comes with the spot.. Second runner up is usually ignored unless they are super easy to hate ideologically (ie USSR). When China outshines America they'll be blamed for everything from bad weather to dead puppies.. just wait

[Meshugger]

I do not think that China will behave like a cultural juggernaut like USA is even if it become the biggest economy. It also lacks the ambition required for world domination.

 

Finally, while there is an "American dream", there is no "Chinese dream".

[Morgoth]

world domination.

 

This is why we can't have nice things in this world.

 

 

"American dream"

 

Get rich.

 

"Chinese dream"

 

Work hard and get rich.

[Gorth]

Finally, while there is an "American dream"

It has a "Made in China" sticker on the back

[Rosbjerg]

I do not think that China will behave like a cultural juggernaut like USA is even if it become the biggest economy.

 

It's a gradual process - as American wares flowed to Europe post WW1 so did American movies, music, food and general culture - same will happen with China.. Your culture does not become the dominant the instant your economy is the biggest. In Europe we are just used to exporting culture at gun point because that's what we did for the last 500 years.

 

It also lacks the ambition required for world domination.

 

So did America at first - in fact they were pretty dead set on staying isolated and minding their own business, both figurative and literally.

[Calax]

So did America at first - in fact they were pretty dead set on staying isolated and minding their own business, both figurative and literally.

Then japan went and ruined it by blowing up pearl.

[Walsingham]

So did America at first - in fact they were pretty dead set on staying isolated and minding their own business, both figurative and literally.

Then japan went and ruined it by blowing up pearl.

 

Damn good thing, too. We'd have missed those Grants in the desert, and I think everyone would hvae been upset if the Germans had got our mideast oil.

[HoonDing]

I don't get why the Republicans are rallying behind a mormon.

[Meshugger]

Finally, while there is an "American dream"

It has a "Made in China" sticker on the back

 

Does it matter when it comes to cultural ideal? After all, it sounds more like the chinese being under american influence than anything.

 

I do not think that China will behave like a cultural juggernaut like USA is even if it become the biggest economy.

 

It's a gradual process - as American wares flowed to Europe post WW1 so did American movies, music, food and general culture - same will happen with China.. Your culture does not become the dominant the instant your economy is the biggest. In Europe we are just used to exporting culture at gun point because that's what we did for the last 500 years.

 

I haven't even seen any indication of this happening. Remember the Japanese tiger? All that we got was some japenese influence, but a far cry from the total domination. We are talking about change of langua franca in business, music and general culture. So unless China seriously flexes its muscles, it's not going to happen.

It also lacks the ambition required for world domination.

 

So did America at first - in fact they were pretty dead set on staying isolated and minding their own business, both figurative and literally.

 

Not comparable such easily though. The US assumed control after the power vacuum after WW1 where the british empire, their closest allies, started to crumble. The US also had a pretty nice head start with it sharing the same language and similar (Anglo-saxon) culture. China has none of these. It has a tremendous languagebarrier that is not only a completely different alphabet, but it is also not even phonetic.

 

Point being, China still has a pretty steep uphill battle to face in order to replace the US as the dominant superpower in the world.

[Gorth]

Point being, China still has a pretty steep uphill battle to face in order to replace the US as the dominant superpower in the world.

Why replace it when they can own it? Mid last year, China had more than a trillion dollar worth of US bonds. It's probably only Japan who owns more of the public debt. That of course also means China has a vested interest in the US not going bankrupt.

[Rosbjerg]

Well things can go in any direction now, it's really interesting.. America can swing back if they get a few consecutive great leaders, Europe might unite and become a true superpower and China might buy out America and start dominating the east and then slowly move westward. Or all of it can happen and we get a whopping 3 front WW3..

[Nepenthe]

Well things can go in any direction now

This thread sure has.

[Tigranes]

Japan was nowhere near fulfilling the hypothetical conditions for US-style global hegemony, so it can neither prove or disprove that argument. It wasn't rich enough (though they got closest here), it wasn't big enough, it wasn't rich and strong for long enough to maintain a sustained cultural wave, with post-war agreements the military dimension was virtually nonexistent, and finally, Japan has always been far too insular - even now, you will very rarely see Japanese graduate students or professors, or professors not in Japan Studies getting jobs in Japanese universities. (This is tied up with their weird system.) Even in businesses, that kind of transnational expansion or proliferation was limited to a few specific, and often abortive, attempts like Sony in Hollywood.

 

China is a different story - it would be interesting to see the popularity of Chinese language programs around the world now compared to, say, those of Japan now or in the 80s (though being ni the 80s would autoamtically make it lower anyway). The Chinese culture industry is lamentably awful, but in fact is making significant progress in terms of technological sophistication, infrastructure, funding and personal experience - in movies, television, popular music, video games.

 

It's harder for me to comment on hard economic stuff, so I won't, but while Meshugger's final conclusion I think is right (a steep uphill battle for China), I think China clearly pictures some form of hegemony in their long-term planning and they could well get there (though not necessarily by making America into a shriveled old prune of a world power).

[Walsingham]

Speaking to someone who is talking chinese is like standing trying to have a conversation with a William Shatner, as he flits past on a very fast spinning funfair ride, when he doesn't want to be on one, and has tourettes.

[Guard Dog]

@Calax I could spend the next hour posting links and writing a witty response to you but we both know that would be a complete waste of my time wrtitng and your time reading. You an I could not even agree if rain was really wet and I like you too much to argue with you. We both know who is voting for who and neither of us is changing the other's mind.

 

@Krezack, 307 million Americans don't give a **** what you and your 53 friends think.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

@Calax I could spend the next hour posting links and writing a witty response to you but we both know that would be a complete waste of my time wrtitng and your time reading. You an I could not even agree if rain was really wet and I like you too much to argue with you. We both know who is voting for who and neither of us is changing the other's mind.

Actually, I kinda like arguing with somebody who doesn't get all gasbaggy "NYah nyah nyah! I'm better than you" (you know, the Gromnir method) becuase it often forces you to examine the same set of data, from a different point.

 

And I don't know who you're voting for beyond the giant red elephant. I'm assuming it's not captain Crazy (sorry, but Gingrich is just getting scary... condos on the moon? SOPA being a LIBERAL tool? WTF?) so the only other viable option is Romney.

 

That said... no offense but the Republican's have about as much of a chance of winning the election as Palin had getting good reviews on her movie that came out last year. (This one) The two guys who are vying for the republican side of the ticket are

 

A) The architect of attack politics, cheater extrodinare, Over the top big government, rich, insider, and all around jerk Gingrich

and

B) Mormon, unrelatable, rich-and-known-for-it, inconsistant, and about as conniving as my plastic knife Romney. (although when his gloves come off he can shred people, as seen in florida against gingrich)

 

But either way, they've both been murdering each other so much that the american public makes a mockery of them both while Obama actually tries to be personal and raises HUGE amounts of cash.

 

Oh, and Santorum is still around... and declared that abortions are linked to cancer.

[Tigranes]

If we're talking pure votability, the Republicans have a fair chance of winning, though I'd still put my money on Obama. The american public doesn't make a mockery of them, it says something about US politics (good? bad?) that despite all the attack ads Romney at least would still be a viable candidate.

[Hurlshort]

If the Republicans had a somewhat decent candidate I'd give them great odds of winning. But Romney is going to have a tough go of it.

 

Maybe I'll vote for Roseanne Barr this year

[Calax]

If we're talking pure votability, the Republicans have a fair chance of winning, though I'd still put my money on Obama. The american public doesn't make a mockery of them, it says something about US politics (good? bad?) that despite all the attack ads Romney at least would still be a viable candidate.

I don't know... it seems like the Republicans are still sucking on the fact that the Tea Party was one gigantic cluster**** that was piggy backing on them. Tea Party, and the public opinion of the government in general, is so low it's kinda scary. Add onto that the fact that right now the republicans are blowing themselves up (to the point PAT ROBERTSON said "tone it down guys, seriously!"), and you don't really see much viability.

 

Right now, they only look viable in comparison because they infighting. It'd be interesting to see turnout of voters in primary states during the primaries, and then again during the actual election itself, I get the feeling most voters are a bit tuned out right now, waiting to see who wins the primary before deciding who to vote for.

 

Obama has some momentum still, and he has had successes in his tenure as president (more than Bush pre-2004). That, plus the fact that he actually seems to listen to the population (seriously, in a google+ video interview he asked for one of the housewives to send a Resume to the WHITE HOUSE for her husband) is sliding heavily in his favor. But the fact that many of the things he put through have either been neutered, or DOA means that he doesn't seem to have a lot of respect for being able to get stuff done.

 

If the republicans want to win now, and in the future, they're gonna need to stop pandering. No more Tea Party debates where they're trying to discuss what to do with granny who broke a hip but has no insurance, and the crowd is screaming "LET HER DIE" and cheering somebodies execution record. No more "Build an electric fense! With Alligators! And autocannons!" because as this keeps happening (as it's good TV), they promptly alienate the people they really want to swing over, the Moderates/independant vote who don't want to see Granny get killed because she doens't have insurance, and don't want to see such zany things as condo's on the moon, or electric aligator fences.

 

And on the longer view, stop acting like every single piece of legislation is now a part of their party platform. Also, make it look like you're doing something sensible for the MAJORITY of the population, not the minority. For example, nearly driving the government into bankrupcy over a political **** waving contest... while at the same time "affirming the unofficial motto of the United States is "IN god we trust" " Doesn't play well.

 

Nor does killing the 6th amendment.

Or blocking affordible health care

Or giving massive tax breaks to the highest class, saying it'll create jobs... to the point where I'd pay more taxes per capita than Romney....

 

................................

 

[/rant]

Sorry, got a bit off base. But I could see how they could win, but it'd require alienating their money flow (Corps) and they don't want to endanger that, except that by buddying up that tightly with the Super-Pac's and so on, they're angering the voters which won't end well.

 

I do suspect that the 2012 elections will see some serious upsets again as voters show their opinion of how things are in washington.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Calax

[Guard Dog]

@Calax I could spend the next hour posting links and writing a witty response to you but we both know that would be a complete waste of my time wrtitng and your time reading. You an I could not even agree if rain was really wet and I like you too much to argue with you. We both know who is voting for who and neither of us is changing the other's mind.

Actually, I kinda like arguing with somebody who doesn't get all gasbaggy "NYah nyah nyah! I'm better than you" (you know, the Gromnir method) becuase it often forces you to examine the same set of data, from a different point.

 

And I don't know who you're voting for beyond the giant red elephant. I'm assuming it's not captain Crazy (sorry, but Gingrich is just getting scary... condos on the moon? SOPA being a LIBERAL tool? WTF?) so the only other viable option is Romney.

 

That said... no offense but the Republican's have about as much of a chance of winning the election as Palin had getting good reviews on her movie that came out last year. (This one) The two guys who are vying for the republican side of the ticket are

 

A) The architect of attack politics, cheater extrodinare, Over the top big government, rich, insider, and all around jerk Gingrich

and

B) Mormon, unrelatable, rich-and-known-for-it, inconsistant, and about as conniving as my plastic knife Romney. (although when his gloves come off he can shred people, as seen in florida against gingrich)

 

But either way, they've both been murdering each other so much that the american public makes a mockery of them both while Obama actually tries to be personal and raises HUGE amounts of cash.

 

Oh, and Santorum is still around... and declared that abortions are linked to cancer.

 

You are correct, I am voting for the elephant no matter which one ends up with the nomination and I'll probably have to hold my nose to do it. But the Obama admin has to go. Everything I posted before was true.... all of it. Obama was not personally responsible for all of it but all of it was done in his name by people he put in place. The single most important thing in this world, individual liberty, means nothing to these people. Obama believes and has all but said the government should dominate every aspect of our lives. That is a perversion of what this country is supposed to be.

 

I'd love to get into this more but I have to leave for work and I'll be on the road for a few days.

[Walsingham]

The moon condos thing is the only reason I'd have to vote for Gingrich.

 

For. F***'s. Sake. People. Let's. Get. Into. Space.

[Hurlshort]

I like the moon stuff too. I think the media has spun it pretty badly, when you listen to his whole speech his first thing is putting the Florida space programs back in business to create jobs, and then work towards ambitious projects.

 

Obama is going to benefit from the recent jobs numbers, that's for sure. And that should be a long term boosts, unlike when Osama got killed. That helped him short term only, they should have scheduled that for the day before the election

 

GD, I implore you to stop listening to some of these right wing radio hosts, or at least mix in some moderates and maybe an opposing viewpoint here and there. Liberty is not under attack. We haven't become socialists or commies. Obamacare is actually more tame than Social Security and Medicare, which were implemented way before Obama.

 

Go back and look at our tax rates throughout history. They are super low right now comparatively.

 

As for personal freedom, we used to have slavery, segregation. We took Japanese Americans and shoved them in internment camps. This is just sensationalism. We have steadily improved personal freedom. I don't expect to change your beliefs, but your posts make it sound like you have lost faith in our country. I hope that's not true.

[Meshugger]

Why is Ron Paul so unelectable in the eyes of the republicans? He is the only sensible person of the whole lot