NO THE DEBATE IS INDOORS

seke2 wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:Unless Obama is running for President of the World, what thre rest of the world thinks about our election is not important.

Other countries worry about their own interests first and foremost, a lot more than who currently occupies the WH.

I don't see any foreign governments slamming their door to the United States based on who is in the WH, therefore foreign relations is much more complex than a popularity contest.

True to an extent, but Obama's global popularity will probably make other countries much more inclined to come to the table with a good attitude. And the converse, if McCain beats him, will be a lot of countries who will think that we just made a horrible choice and be less inclined to deal favorably with us. I mean, it's just human nature, really. If other people want us to elect Obama, and Obama is elected, they will have a better opinion of the USA and Obama's reputation as a uniter will play well on the global stage. Definitely a simplification, but I think it's foolish to totally dismiss that as a factor.

If there had been worldwide polls for Reagan-Carter, Reagan-Mondale, Bush-Dukakis, etc. (maybe there were?), I have little doubt who would have been preferred candidates in those races.

Do you think France or the UK or anyone else gives a rats *** who were want has their leaders? I don't think so.

I think a pro-bailout person was saying that Kudlow was against it and something about how dumb he is - he's for the bailout {in concept} and is apparantly trying to convince GOP congressmen to do it.

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If anyone here watches the debate live instead of the Phillies game, I will seriously question your priorities.

im sorta counting on it being rained out. is that not a good bet?

actually looking like its gonna be drizzling but not pouring, probably get in a full game

The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

somewhere amongst those kast two paragraphs lie the clues to tonights gamethread title

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

Edit: Anyone fond of making blanket generalities, as in your second paragraph, is probably unwilling and unable to appreciate nuanced argument in an elucidation of your first paragraph. See, that was a fun game.

I think what he's suggesting, Worthless, is that voters should perhaps consider which candidate will be best for our interests both domestically and abroad; we've made a lot of enemies in recent years and whoever is President will likely have a lot of relationship re-building to do.

I don't think he's advocating an international voting process.

VoxOrion wrote:I'm saying yapping and debating are McCain's thing. One has to pretend not to know anything about the man to think he doesn't want an opportunity to carry on.

VoxOrion wrote:He dropped out ten days later, and got stomped on March 7th except in New England (and especially stomped in California). Sorry that's not a full article but I assume it satisfies for the point I'm making:

Unless McCain is preparing to quit running for president soon, I think the context is pretty relevant. Do you think he thought he had a chance of winning the nomination on 2/28?

You make it sound like since he dropped out only ten days after he canceled his debate appearance, it obviously means that he had already planned to withdraw. But the event context does not support that. Yes I do think he had a chance on the 28th. Just look at the chain of events.

He withdrew from the debate on the 28th. Before that, he had won primaries in New Hampshire, Arizona, and Michigan. He lost South Carolina and Iowa, where he hadn't campaigned. This was very early in the process and he was doing well up until that point and was a viable candidate. South Carolina was a big disappointment but up until that point it was his only setback.

On the 29th (the day after canceling his appearance in the debate) there were primaries in Washington and Virginia. He did not do well in either one. The debate was scheduled on Thursday the 2nd, two days after these primaries.

Then, the next Tuesday the 7th was Super Tuesday, which included the California primary where the debate was to be held. He got trounced in multiple primaries on the 7th. He dropped out on the 10th.

So, before the 28th (the debate decision), McCain had won 3 out of 5 states and 3 out of 4 where he campaigned. Between the 28th and the 10th, he lost 9 states, many of them very important for winning the nomination (California and NY) and won only 4 New England states. Basically, Super Tuesday was the election for McCain in 2000. He basically dropped out after the election was over but pulled out of the debate before the election was held. So, no I don't agree with your argument there.

But even if he had no realistic hopes of winning on the 28th, I don't get how this has anything to do with your dismissal of the idea that John McCain would pass up an opportunity to yap and debate, which are his thing. You made it sound like it was some kind of inherent quality and he would take any opportunity to debate. Why would having low expectations of winning the nomination make him cancel a debate if it is his thing? What is the cost at that point if he thinks he is going to lose anyway?

I have no explanation for why McCain pulled out of the debate in 2000 nor why he was threatening to do the same thing this year. However, I am pretty sure that both decisions were based on some calculation that he and his campaigns made about what was best for his campaign.

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I guess my perspective is one that it is more mutually beneficial for the US to have a leader who is better for the world in general. A big part of that is the world's willingness to cooperate with us. I guess in a way I sort of look at it as a global prisoner's dilemma. Picking Obama is our method of "cooperating" with the rest of the world in a way that I feel is likely to benefit both us and the rest of the world.

I guess I also value the overall quality of life for the world more than I value the quality of life for the USA, so I suppose that's part of why I "care" about the the rest of the world's opinion on who we elect.

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

And the first person to say OBAMA WANTS TO MEET WITH TERRORISTS TO HAVE TEA or something along those lines, should be banned

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

Edit: Anyone fond of making blanket generalities, as in your second paragraph, is probably unwilling and unable to appreciate nuanced argument in an elucidation of your first paragraph. See, that was a fun game.

to add to woody's point.. karn did also say it was "as flimsy"...

but i agree with woody that the world liking our president is generally a good thing (as long as we like him too). in very broad terms, it can only help to have allies for our future efforts that will hopefully have the U.S. citizen's interests in mind (whether that is military partners or trade partners)...

not that the world couldn't learn to love mccain if he is elected, but the point is they already love obama. i guess.

Karn is such a kidder.

seke2 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I guess my perspective is one that it is more mutually beneficial for the US to have a leader who is better for the world in general. A big part of that is the world's willingness to cooperate with us. I guess in a way I sort of look at it as a global prisoner's dilemma. Picking Obama is our method of "cooperating" with the rest of the world in a way that I feel is likely to benefit both us and the rest of the world.

I guess I also value the overall quality of life for the world more than I value the quality of life for the USA, so I suppose that's part of why I "care" about the the rest of the world's opinion on who we elect.

Oh please. Like people who are voting for McCain don't think he'll be better for the world as a whole as well. Just because some dumb fucker in Germany or whatever thinks Obama will be better for the world doesn't mean he would be.

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

Camp Holdout wrote:trade partners)...

VOTE PALIN!

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

I'd handicap as such
McCain -120
Obama +120

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

What can I say. There's such stark contrast between the plans, actions, and messages from both candidates and their campaigns -- contrasts so apparent and well delineated -- that I can't imagine what it would take, at this late point, for someone to really, honestly not know. It's simply out of my realm of comprehension.

seke2 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I guess my perspective is one that it is more mutually beneficial for the US to have a leader who is better for the world in general. A big part of that is the world's willingness to cooperate with us. I guess in a way I sort of look at it as a global prisoner's dilemma. Picking Obama is our method of "cooperating" with the rest of the world in a way that I feel is likely to benefit both us and the rest of the world.

I guess I also value the overall quality of life for the world more than I value the quality of life for the USA, so I suppose that's part of why I "care" about the the rest of the world's opinion on who we elect.

Would people rather have Tony Blair as PM? I would, because he was friendly to US interests. In the same way, I think Obama is more friendly to the interests of Germany, France, etc, whom I would think would place a greater emphasis on global consensus. Whether or not you believe is better for US citizens is completely separate, in my opinion, because our interest are often not aligned.

What I find interesting is Obama's comments against NAFTA (which he later partially retracted, if I recall correctly). What message does this send to our American neighbors, and how do they feel about Obama's tough talk about protecting US jobs? While I'm a huge supporter of free trade absent any conditions, I don't think Obama's stance should be examined under the lens of foreign countries. Instead, you should focus EXCLUSIVELY on whether his policies reflect your understanding of the policies he supports, and how it affects the world you live in.