NationStates Jolt Archive

I think any American who is realistic will acknowledge that we have alienated a vast majority of the world's citizens, and that the massive part of this plunge has occured during the Bush Presidency.

So I have a question:

Could the 2008 election improve your opinion of US or its citizens? If so, how. Would it take a change it party? A third party? A specific candidate?

Poll will be up soon. Thanks for feeding my curiousity.

It definitely will, regardless of who gets elected.

As an American citizen, and an anarchist, choosing between the two heads of the same corporatist monster will not improve my opinion of the US government.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Bush has alienated and ticked off pretty much every country on the globe (sans Israel), but no, in the sense that I don't exactly judge every American by Bush.

Basically, no. All of the candidates, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of populist idiots or charlatans. In other words, they are perfectly geared for the masses, who want an election to be more and more like American Idol. Whoever wins this election will simply have the opportunity to use the Federal ladle to benefit their allies. It will be business as usual, and as such, it cannot change my opinion.

My opinion of the US isn't going to change. My opinion of government might, if the person who is elected acts in the best interests of this country (of course, "the best interests" that would have to be met for my opinion to rise would have to be the best interests in my personal opinion).

As an American citizen, and an anarchist, choosing between the two heads of the same corporatist monster will not improve my opinion of the US government.

It must be a boring life being an anarchist. You can only have your panties in a bunch only so many times a year.

Basically, no. All of the candidates, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of populist idiots or charlatans. In other words, they are perfectly geared for the masses, who want an election to be more and more like American Idol. Whoever wins this election will simply have the opportunity to use the Federal ladle to benefit their allies. It will be business as usual, and as such, it cannot change my opinion.

Do you honestly think that anyone granted that much power will act any differently?

Not one bit.

It must be a boring life being an anarchist. You can only have your panties in a bunch only so many times a year.

No, actually, its never a dull day. Listening to my naive neoconservative debate team members, while aggravating, can be a source of amusement.

Not one bit.

*gives a cookie*

not a bit

Basically, no. All of the candidates, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of populist idiots or charlatans. In other words, they are perfectly geared for the masses, who want an election to be more and more like American Idol. Whoever wins this election will simply have the opportunity to use the Federal ladle to benefit their allies. It will be business as usual, and as such, it cannot change my opinion.

I still won't vote for Ron Paul, as I don't agree with his core philosophy, but I hope he keeps having moments this one (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/16/ron-paul-schools-hannity-on-blowback/) on H&C last night. He could do the Republican party a lot of good.

Do you honestly think that anyone granted that much power will act any differently?

No. But mass elections basically boil down to being the best at giving the masses nice little things with your right hand while you rob them with your left, then alternate with someone else.

Only being able to speak in regard to the UK; certainly. The principal cause of anitpathy towards the US in the UK appears to be centrd upon Iraq, thus, in light of the departure of Bush, and Blair (TWAT), the focus of this antipathy will be removed.

It must be a boring life being an anarchist. You can only have your panties in a bunch only so many times a year.

:D

Very nice.

The fact that Hillary and Obama are doing better Bill Richardson just makes me hate the average American.

The fact that Hillary and Obama are doing better Bill Richardson just makes me hate the average American.

Obama cult of personality definitely has to go.

Conceivably, sure. If we elected farm animals to all the positions.

Obama cult of personality definitely has to go.
If only it would. His policies seem ok, but Bill Richardson is just better and has a lot of experience.

What does Obama have? Some community service, a few years of being a senator, and being half black.

I don't even know what Hillary's appeal to people is, aside from having a vagina. She refuses to admit her vote on Iraq was wrong, and she broke the law by accessing private files on hundreds of people. Do we expect her to be better than Bush when it comes to privacy of American citizens?

If the presidency goes to the Democrats, then yes.

More so if it goes to a Democrat who's not just a Republican in drag.

Edit: Your thread title says "could", but unfortunately your poll says "will" it change my opinion of the US. Can't really say if it will if I don't know how it'll end, can I?

Could the 2008 election improve your opinion of US or its citizens? If so, how. Would it take a change it party? A third party? A specific candidate?

My opinion of the US hasn't really changed through the Bush presidency. It would be nice to see a new leader, but it's always important to keep government and country separate in your head.

Depends on the new President's stance on invading Canada.

Depends on the new President's stance on invading Canada.

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no invasion issue here. God knows how the last one worked... :/

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no invasion issue here. God knows how the last one worked... :/
Yeah, Canada whooped our butts in a game of hockey. We learned our lesson after that.

Wouldn't it all depend on the new administration?

no

Could the 2008 election improve your opinion of US or its citizens?


No.

Would it take a change it party? A third party? A specific candidate?


The problem with the United States is fundamental, structural, functional, above and beyond any issue of electoral process. The electoral process in the United States is dominated by two right-wing political parties, each with well established and well documented connections to the specific interests of the upper class elite, each with a well established and well documented history of militarism, imperialism, and opposition to the democratic rule of law in the United States or elsewhere. Changing the party in office changes nothing more than the particular rhetorical nonsense used to justified the continued elitist militaristic status-quo corporatocracy. A doctor may as well try to cure a festering open sore by using an ink pen to draw flower petals and a stem around it. At least it looks pretty, even if it stinks of rot.

Conceivably, sure. If we elected farm animals to all the positions.

Washington DC is full of jackasses, weasles, vultures and rats enough as it is.

No.



The problem with the United States is fundamental, structural, functional, above and beyond any issue of electoral process. The electoral process in the United States is dominated by two right-wing political parties, each with well established and well documented connections to the specific interests of the upper class elite, each with a well established and well documented history of militarism, imperialism, and opposition to the democratic rule of law in the United States or elsewhere. Changing the party in office changes nothing more than the particular rhetorical nonsense used to justified the continued elitist militaristic status-quo corporatocracy. A doctor may as well try to cure a festering open sore by using an ink pen to draw flower petals and a stem around it. At least it looks pretty, even if it stinks of rot.

How can you justify the democrats as right wing?
While the USA does engage in armed conflicts, they hardly constitute militarism.
Imperialism is generally concerned with the idea of colonies. The US does control two territories, but it does so very loosely. Compared to European countries, some which still have small colonies and most which had colonies during the 20th century, the united states does not have a well established history of Imperialism.
Beside recent privacy and rights scandals, when has the government conspired to take away our freedoms? Very little. I want to see your well established and well documented sources on this subject.

If only it would. His policies seem ok, but Bill Richardson is just better and has a lot of experience.

What does Obama have? Some community service, a few years of being a senator, and being half black.

I don't even know what Hillary's appeal to people is, aside from having a vagina. She refuses to admit her vote on Iraq was wrong, and she broke the law by accessing private files on hundreds of people. Do we expect her to be better than Bush when it comes to privacy of American citizens?

Except, you know, she didn't (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/index.htm). That's another one of those smears that just won't die. There are plenty of reasons to not like Hillary Clinton--her war vote is one of them--but if you wouldn't mind stopping the right wing smears, that would be appreciated.

How can you justify the democrats as right wing?
While the USA does engage in armed conflicts, they hardly constitute militarism.
Imperialism is generally concerned with the idea of colonies. The US does control two territories, but it does so very loosely. Compared to European countries, some which still have small colonies and most which had colonies during the 20th century, the united states does not have a well established history of Imperialism.
Beside recent privacy and rights scandals, when has the government conspired to take away our freedoms? Very little. I want to see your well established and well documented sources on this subject.

i agree completely . american soldiers have laid down their lives for other nations for over 200 years

Considering I live in the U.S I already have quite a high opion of it.

The problem with the current political situation is that both parties believe that government is a tool with which they can adjust society. Democrats want to create a society of equality by forcing their concept of "fairness" on us while Republicans want to force their "morality" on us to acheive a society of "good," "pious," "christian," values. Neither party is seeking to preserve our history as a baston of freedom--the freedom to be rich or poor, freedom to make good or bad choices, freedom to be moral or religious or neither.

Considering I live in the U.S I already have quite a high opion of it.

Unalloyed nationalism is the 'opion' (above) of the masses. I, too, live in the U.S., as do two generations of my offspring. If our country can find no excuse for persisting besides propagating compulsory consumerism and semi-literate pseudo-theism, I suspect our happiest moment in history has already passed.

My opinion is more than merely a point on a one-dimensional scale, so naturally a change of government will be a change of opinion. It won't change very much though, I expect, unless the Americans realise that they aren't limited to two options when determining the future of their nation and the others that it affects.

Washington DC is full of jackasses, weasles, vultures and rats enough as it is.

Do not taint the name of those noble creatures by associating them with politicians. ;)

Overall my opinion of the US is that it's a very cool country. Overall I wouldn't mind moving there if I got the chance. But there are 2 big questionmarks that means I'd never even go on a vacation there.

The biggest questionmark is how long it takes after they get out of Iraq until they get bored and invade another country. It's not just the current Iraq war, the US has been there before and in many other places too. It seems those crazy americans just love to make enemies by bombing and invading other countries every once in a while.

On the other hand the terrorists are even worse. Thats not even a question as nothing could ever improve my opinion about them.

The other smaller questionmark is that people in the US seems to be sueing for the most silly things. And when big corporations join the game they spend fortunes on lobbying for laws that will benefit them and on lawyers. Add that american lawyer TV series are making a circus out of trials. It gives the impression that in the US courtrooms are not places to hold balanced and fair trials in to find justice. It looks more like a battleground where the one with the most and most clever troops in the forms of lawyers will likely win the battle, sometimes even over rather silly issues.



The election themselves won't change much unless the new president changes one of the 2 issues above. I don't understand 2 party systems because when your party has no allies it seems you must be centrist populist and appeal to as many voters as possible. If neither choice can branch out too far in some direction there doesn't seem to be much choice.

Here we have 2 blocks with 3-4 parties in each. When you have a couple allies you can drive a liberal line and let the conservative ally take care of the other voters. Or drive a green line to get the envrionmentalist nuts and let the socialist ally take care of the rest. Then you get a real choice and even though the party will cooperate with others your vote does translate into bargening power for their line.

If the presidency goes to the Democrats, then yes.

More so if it goes to a Democrat who's not just a Republican in drag.

Edit: Your thread title says "could", but unfortunately your poll says "will" it change my opinion of the US. Can't really say if it will if I don't know how it'll end, can I?

Misphrased it. Should be could. Sorry. :(

------------

(To the Anti-Obama smears)

Obama has as much experience in being President as every other candidate does going into the White House: none at all. Obama has a great deal of experience at the state level, but, just like the other candidates: he has no experience pertinant in being President of the US. The only candidate that comes close to having that is Hillary.

Richardson, on the other hand, has shown himself to be a Republican in disguise often enough that I can no longer take him seriously.

How can you justify the democrats as right wing?


The most "left wing" policy they advocate is single-payer health care; in any other "western" democracy, this would place them, at best, in the dead center. President William Jefferson Clinton, easily the most popular Democratic president is basically the entire history of the United States was a dedicated neoliberal "free-market" globalist. The Democratic party is firmly entrenched in promoting the corporate capitalist "free market" agenda. When they start calling for the nationalization/collectivization of the means of production, or abolishment of property, or other actually left-wing policies they'll be left wing. Until then, they're just slightly less right-wing.


While the USA does engage in armed conflicts, they hardly constitute militarism.


Despite the end of the Cold War and the absense of any military force, or any reasonable coalition thereof, capable of posing an existential or other threat to the United States itself, the United States maintains a federal military budget orders of magnitude above and beyond any other state. This was also true before 9/11.


Imperialism is generally concerned with the idea of colonies. The US does control two territories, but it does so very loosely. Compared to European countries, some which still have small colonies and most which had colonies during the 20th century, the united states does not have a well established history of Imperialism.


The United States, despite the end of the Cold War and the absense of any other state capable of presenting a credible existential threat to the United States, maintains permenant military presense in in many foreign states around the world. In more than one case, like Okinawa/Japan or South Korea, that presence is increasingly unpopular. Additionally, the United States possesses and exercises a majority stake in the control of such international intergovernmental and economic organizations including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, etc. With such a convienient infrastructure, one need not actually occupy foreign lands in order to impose one's agenda upon them. And again, this was all true pre-9/11.


Beside recent privacy and rights scandals, when has the government conspired to take away our freedoms?


Besides recent privacy and rights abuses, when have there been privacy or rights abuses? The answer is in your question.


I want to see your well established and well documented sources on this subject.

All of the following address American hegemony in international relations, abuse of that position, and the concequences of the abuse of that position in both theoretical and empirical (i.e. with concrete historical examples) contexts:


Blowback by Chalmers Johnson (Owl Books: New York, 2000)
Strategy for Empire: U.S. Regional Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era edited by Brian Loveman (SR Books: Landham, MD, 2004)
The Politics of United States Foreign Policy, Third Edition by Jerel A. Rosati (Wadsworth/Thompson Learning: Belmont, CA, 2004)
Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's World Role by Patrick Callahan (Pearson Longman: New York, 2004)
Inequality, Power, and Development: Issues in Political Sociology by Jerry Kloby (Humanity Books: Amherst, New York, 2004)
Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy, Second Edition edited by Ralph G. Carter (CQ Press: Washington, D.C., 2005)
The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy at home and abroad, 1750 to the present, Second Edition by Walter LaFeber (WW Norton and Co.: New York, 1994)
The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet by James Mann (Penguin Books: New York, 2004)
"Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony" by Barry R. Posen, in New Global Dangers: Changing Dimensions of International Security edited by Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Cote Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004)
International Relations, Seventh Edition by Joshua S. Goldstein and Jon C. Pevehouse (Pearson Longman: New York, 2006)


Pay special attention to the more abstract or theoretical issues relating to international relations, hegemony, and the use of military force. Also, take careful note of the history of United States interventionism from the 1700s to today, especially in Southeast Asia and Central/South America during the Cold War, its use of military force, and the real and potential negative concequences not only for Americans but also for the rest of the world. Finally, study closely issues surrounding international trade, especially pertaining to the domination of U.S. interests in international trade organizations and other intergovernmental entities, and how this domination is exploited in pursuit of American-centric policy and interests, again to the detriment of Americans and other citizens of the world.

Enjoy.

Hopefully.

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no invasion issue here. God knows how the last one worked... :/
How do I know that I can trust you. I believe should continue checking that the Canadian border hasn't moved each morning.

How do I know that I can trust you. I believe should continue checking that the Canadian border hasn't moved each morning.

How did you know about Operation Free Maple Syrup?

We just want your oil sands. Surely you aren't using them?

As an American citizen, and an anarchist, choosing between the two heads of the same corporatist monster will not improve my opinion of the US government.

i am not an anarchist by any stretch,but i have to agree with you....it is like deciding between 1 pile of shit over another for dinner.
both party's suck equally,and i don t buy the dems are better for the poor,that they care about us 1 whit,just as i have no iluusions that repubs give 2 shits about me as well.
they care about satisfying their masters,getting elected,having power and perks,the people they purport to rep, us, most decidely are on the very bottom of their to do lists...fuck em all.

Could the 2008 election improve your opinion of US or its citizens? If so, how. Would it take a change it party? A third party? A specific candidate?

Simply put...no, it cannot.

I won't be happy with the U.S. Gov until our foreign policy changes drastically...to a degree that I don't expect out of our elected officials anytime soon.

And regardless of how the election goes, I won't be happy with the average U.S. citizen until reality TV dies a quick and painful death. :p

And regardless of how the election goes, I won't be happy with the average U.S. citizen until reality TV dies a quick and painful death. :p

I'm trying, but I'm only one guy, and there are so many stupid people...

And regardless of how the election goes, I won't be happy with the average U.S. citizen until reality TV dies a quick and painful death. :p

Or just television in general. Or at least the practice of paying for television.

**adjusts antenna on 5" black and white portable TV**

People tripping all over themselves to pay for the privilege of watching commercials is probably the most damning evidence possible for the inherent insanity of the present economic order.

Or just television in general. Or at least the practice of paying for television.

**adjusts antenna on 5" black and white portable TV**

People tripping all over themselves to pay for the privilege of watching commercials is probably the most damning evidence possible for the inherent insanity of the present economic order.

Which is why the DVR may be the best invention of the last fifty years. ;)

If the communists ever get a chance to win, yes, and i am American to.

It definitely will, regardless of who gets elected.

What if its Jeb Bush?

Basically, no. All of the candidates, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of populist idiots or charlatans. In other words, they are perfectly geared for the masses, who want an election to be more and more like American Idol. Whoever wins this election will simply have the opportunity to use the Federal ladle to benefit their allies. It will be business as usual, and as such, it cannot change my opinion.


Pee Wee Herman has a better chance of winning than Ron Paul.

If the communists ever get a chance to win, yes, and i am American to.



LMFAO!! Sorry, but that will never happen. I still think that party is banned and has no sight of not being.

My question is this - why do we have to constantly search for approval? Do the French care if we approve of them? Do the English or Germans? I don't think so. So why do we need their approval?

If a person or nation lives for the approval of others, they're going to get nowhere.

Personally, I'd rather have respect than approval.

The road this country is on now, we have neither.

The election most certainly won't.
The new government's actions might change my perception of the USA, which in time might change my opinion. But that remains to be seen.
My opinon about the population, culture, lifestyle, etc. won't change much.

On a scale 1 to 10, if 1 is the worst opinion one could have about the US and 10 is the opposite, I'm currently at one. If you elect someone decent I might go to 2 but it would take a lot for the one elected to make me have a positive opinion of the US since it's been totally trashed cuz of Bush. So yes, technically it could improve my picture of the US but probably it won't.

LMFAO!! Sorry, but that will never happen. I still think that party is banned and has no sight of not being.

It's perfectly legal to be a Communist. :p But forget holding elected office. Maybe in San Francisco.

My question is this - why do we have to constantly search for approval? Do the French care if we approve of them? Do the English or Germans? I don't think so. So why do we need their approval?

If a person or nation lives for the approval of others, they're going to get nowhere.

Personally, I'd rather have respect than approval.

The road this country is on now, we have neither.

Exactly. Most people don't need approval from foreigners as to our affairs here. It's just another form of online attention-plea stuff, like those "we're sorry" dopes after the '04 election. Some people feed on pity/sympathy/attention, etc.

Could the 2008 election improve your opinion of US or its citizens? If so, how. Would it take a change it party? A third party? A specific candidate?


I have no problem with the citizens of the US. I like to think my opinion of the nation would depend on it's actions, not the brand of leadership it has.

But in the spirit of the question: a narrow majority of Demo's in both chambers and a Demo president. Not mad about a landslide.

I am the poster previously known as Nobel Hobos.

(To the Anti-Obama smears)

Obama has as much experience in being President as every other candidate does going into the White House: none at all. Obama has a great deal of experience at the state level, but, just like the other candidates: he has no experience pertinant in being President of the US. The only candidate that comes close to having that is Hillary.

Richardson, on the other hand, has shown himself to be a Republican in disguise often enough that I can no longer take him seriously.

Sounds like a great time to bust out some Living Colour

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your t.v.
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
I'm the cult of personality

Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality

Neon lights, Nobel prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your gods name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality

i am not an anarchist by any stretch,but i have to agree with you....it is like deciding between 1 pile of shit over another for dinner.
both party's suck equally,and i don t buy the dems are better for the poor,that they care about us 1 whit,just as i have no iluusions that repubs give 2 shits about me as well.
they care about satisfying their masters,getting elected,having power and perks,the people they purport to rep, us, most decidely are on the very bottom of their to do lists...fuck em all.

*gives a cookie* :p

No. The elections have just become one big game, I don't think they're even remotely serious on the canidates anymore...just what will stir the attention of the people (and especially the media).

If anything, it'll damper my opinion of the US like it already is.

Almost certainly, unless it's that Mitt Whatshisname wanker who is elected (the one who claimed that the French can request a 7 year limit on their marriages).

The election itself won't, but the new president might.

It would depend on how the Government would act after the elections, I suppose. But I've never judged the American citizens by their ruler.

i voted "probably", though what i really mean is POSSIBLY.

what will improve my opinion of this country i happen to be surrounded by is when it stops demonizing everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper and starts remembering how to do anything besides destroy.

the corporate mafia's exccessive defacto influence over the electoral proccess bodes ill for the likelyhood of this happening, but there do remain several ways in which it still could, and hopefully to some degree will.

hope as they say, dies last, and the world is not such a simple place, even that of human coerciveness. people do get tired of things being any one way, even if it is seldom a majority willing to dicipline themselves in such a way as to bring about meaningful and positive chainge.

there's no reason it can't happen, and to anyone with half a brain, there's the reason of the survival of the very web of life on which their own depends to motivate at least a hope for doing so.

i'm not assuming or holding my breath, but i'm damd sure not giving up hope either. not now, not ever.

=^^=
.../\...

As an American citizen, and an anarchist, choosing between the two heads of the same corporatist monster will not improve my opinion of the US government.

I may not be an American cit, but I'm an anarchist, and I gots ta agree with Trotskylvania here.

Trotskylvania, do you read The Match?

What would it require?

Well a good start would be some egalitarianism...once you are able to look after your own population via your own laws....that would be a good start.

Actually respecting international law would also be a good start, instead of using, or even misrepresenting law to get its own way.

Education is also an area that needs improving. Understanding that there is nothing wrong with arguing or debating even unpleasant subjects.

Admitting that the US actually does have a major problem with regards to firearms and doing something about it.

Just a start.