• This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:

    1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.

    2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.

    3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.

    Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.

    Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.

    Thank you!

Presidential Elections

K

KingPaulV

Starting XI
So; being an American I am curious as to the opinion of people outside of the United States on who they believe would be the best choice out of the ones give for next president, obviously we are still on primary elections but it would be interesting for me to get a foreign outlook on these very important elections...

btw if you dont know who the candidates are, right now we have

Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama for the democratic party

Sen. McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckelby for the Republican party
 
S

::shinji::

Min
KingPaulV;2480170 said:
So; being an American I am curious as to the opinion of people outside of the United States on who they believe would be the best choice out of the ones give for next president, obviously we are still on primary elections but it would be interesting for me to get a foreign outlook on these very important elections...

btw if you dont know who the candidates are, right now we have

Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama for the democratic party

Sen. McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckleby for the Republican party
Click to expand...

"Huckleby"

I don't know if I should find that funny or just sad..
 
Mus

Mus

Fan Favourite
never heard of any of them. lol Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have been on the news a few times, Obama sounds to be winning by the way there are more stories on him winning things... to be honest though i thaught it was baracko bama :p
 
S

::shinji::

Min
I'd like to believe that Obama would win in a landslide, but I honestly don't have that much faith in American voters. Blame it on Bush's second term.. :(
 
H

Help?

Fan Favourite
Americans are definietly looking for change, but i still think that they are not yet ready for their first ever black president. Fortunately for Obama, his main contender is another minority in those ranks. I don't know who is gonna win, but don't expect McCain to just roll-over either, its gonna be an interesting race.





Does anybody else, beside me feel that this election is like another one of those TV Reality Shows? Something like American Idol for Presidents.
 
B

Bobby

The Legend
Help?;2480466 said:
Americans are definietly looking for change, but i still think that they are not yet ready for their first ever black president. Fortunately for Obama, his main contender is another minority in those ranks. I don't know who is gonna win, but don't expect McCain to just roll-over either, its gonna be an interesting race.





Does anybody else, beside me feel that this election is like another one of those TV Reality Shows? Something like American Idol for Presidents.
Click to expand...

Heh, women aren't minorities. They're actually the majority.
 
K

KingPaulV

Starting XI
I say Obama, He has a Kennedy-like quality to him, however we know what lack of experience got us last time (Bush=Worts President in American History)...I too had lost some faith in the system after last election, but to be quite honest the choices then were not nearly as interesting as the choices now....nonetheless, If Hilary wins the nomination for the democratic party, it would give life to the Republicans and McCain's chances. Republicans LOATH Hilary and a large number of Americans will vote for McCain just so Hilary doesnt get it. I think Obama has a better shot of defeating McCain in general elections....I still find that his substance is lacking compared to others....and unfortunatly there is also a large number of people specially in the middle of the country and the deep south that will not vote for a black man, regardless of his susbtance....
 
B

Bobby

The Legend
I was going to vote for Edwards, but now I'm leaning toward Obama although I like Hilary's healthcare plan more.

The Republicans will be decided by the time the NC (May 6, last in the South) primary rolls around, but the democrats might be tight so our delegates (largest amount of any May state) might actually mean something.
 
H

Help?

Fan Favourite
Bobby;2480488 said:
Heh, women aren't minorities. They're actually the majority.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i know, i added the "in those ranks" part, which is the high level management positions.
 
R

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
OK, I have kept pretty quiet on the US elections so far, but now I think I have a question that I can answer and explain without riling anyone up. Given the question is specifically about an INTERNATIONAL perspective based on the candidates REMAINING in the race, I am going to stick my neck out and say...

Clinton.

For these reasons... basically, I don't think Obama has enough nous or experience YET when it comes to dealing with international issues. For starters, with 1 million + deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan linked DIRECTLY to the foreign policy of the current administration, the world needs a US president who is somewhat sympathetic to the UN - because the flood of people from Iraq to neighboring countries, the destabilisation of Pakistan, the igniting of sectarian violence in Iraq, the uncertainty in the oil markets and everything else that has flowed from those conflicts are having international effects and therefore require an international solution. Given that a Hillary presidency will by default have the input of Bill, then I think that for at least one term she is the best option in terms of bringing the UN on board. The trouble with having a president without international nous is that you end up with what we have had for 8 years - a president lacking an understanding of the complexities of the world institutions meaning that the principal advisors end up running the show and furnishing their own fiefdoms (Cheney) and prejudices (Rumsfeld) and so forth.

Now don't get me wrong, I am sure that Obama as a person is probably a better bet than Clinton. But right now, I don't think he is ready for the messy reality of foreign policy. I know that when it comes to presidents, the US voters tend to vote on domestic issues and this time will be no different given the economic situation at home, and it is going to be a long time before the average US voter accepts that their nation is slowly but surely going to be overtaken by China, and realise that some of the domestic 'issues' (faith, abortion, whether a woman or a black man should be president) have pretty much been resolved in most other developed countries.

But looking at it from an international perspective, I think President Clinton and Vice President Obama would be ideal. Then he can get himself some more practical experience and run for presidency when he has a firmer foundation.

Note: I am not suggesting that Obama has a weak knowledge or understanding of the world - his speeches on Sudan and HIV in Africa make that clear, but rather he needs some more experience dealing with the relevant institutions. But he will certainly make a fantastic president one day.

Obama '16?
 
ShiftyPowers

ShiftyPowers

Make America Great Again
rhizome17;2480530 said:
OK, I have kept pretty quiet on the US elections so far, but now I think I have a question that I can answer and explain without riling anyone up. Given the question is specifically about an INTERNATIONAL perspective based on the candidates REMAINING in the race, I am going to stick my neck out and say...

Clinton.

For these reasons... basically, I don't think Obama has enough nous or experience YET when it comes to dealing with international issues. For starters, with 1 million + deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan linked DIRECTLY to the foreign policy of the current administration, the world needs a US president who is somewhat sympathetic to the UN - because the flood of people from Iraq to neighboring countries, the destabilisation of Pakistan, the igniting of sectarian violence in Iraq, the uncertainty in the oil markets and everything else that has flowed from those conflicts are having international effects and therefore require an international solution. Given that a Hillary presidency will by default have the input of Bill, then I think that for at least one term she is the best option in terms of bringing the UN on board. The trouble with having a president without international nous is that you end up with what we have had for 8 years - a president lacking an understanding of the complexities of the world institutions meaning that the principal advisors end up running the show and furnishing their own fiefdoms (Cheney) and prejudices (Rumsfeld) and so forth.

Now don't get me wrong, I am sure that Obama as a person is probably a better bet than Clinton. But right now, I don't think he is ready for the messy reality of foreign policy. I know that when it comes to presidents, the US voters tend to vote on domestic issues and this time will be no different given the economic situation at home, and it is going to be a long time before the average US voter accepts that their nation is slowly but surely going to be overtaken by China, and realise that some of the domestic 'issues' (faith, abortion, whether a woman or a black man should be president) have pretty much been resolved in most other developed countries.

But looking at it from an international perspective, I think President Clinton and Vice President Obama would be ideal. Then he can get himself some more practical experience and run for presidency when he has a firmer foundation.

Note: I am not suggesting that Obama has a weak knowledge or understanding of the world - his speeches on Sudan and HIV in Africa make that clear, but rather he needs some more experience dealing with the relevant institutions. But he will certainly make a fantastic president one day.

Obama '16?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Obama has foreign policy experience, is very deferential to the United Nations, and would obviously surround himself with capable foreign policy people. He's been very active to resolve the situation in Kenya as you can see in this and a whole host of other articles from a simple google search. His ideology is also a much more leftist (in US terms) than Clinton's, which lines him up better with the rest of the Western World at the very least. Clinton is going to be much like Bill, and if you recall Bill's foreign policy was not the greatest. He failed to intervene in Rwanda, he bombed the **** out of a bunch of nations, and as with every other issue he was a slave to polling and always stayed his "middle path" which I'm sure you disagree with ideologically.

You're supporting Clinton for essentially the same reason America voted Bush in for a second term. They were scared of foreign policy issues and Bush had "experience." Well experience doesn't mean anything if you are on the wrong side of the issue.
 
R

rhizome17

Fan Favourite
ShiftyPowers;2480543 said:
This is ridiculous. Obama has foreign policy experience, is very deferential to the United Nations, and would obviously surround himself with capable foreign policy people. He's been very active to resolve the situation in Kenya as you can see in this and a whole host of other articles from a simple google search. His ideology is also a much more leftist (in US terms) than Clinton's, which lines him up better with the rest of the Western World at the very least. Clinton is going to be much like Bill, and if you recall Bill's foreign policy was not the greatest. He failed to intervene in Rwanda, he bombed the **** out of a bunch of nations, and as with every other issue he was a slave to polling and always stayed his "middle path" which I'm sure you disagree with ideologically.

You're supporting Clinton for essentially the same reason America voted Bush in for a second term. They were scared of foreign policy issues and Bush had "experience." Well experience doesn't mean anything if you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Click to expand...

And this is the response I anticipated.... I agree with you on all the points regarding both Obama's sympathies and knowledge/ experience, and also regarding Bill Clinton's pathetic foreign policy whilst president. However, I think that with Clinton, he will be looking to influence things under a Hillary presidency and make up for his screw up especially in the dead-end second term he had.

Regarding Obama, obviously he is more to the left and has sympathies that are more in line with my own even. But I worry about a man who in several cases has shown political naivity. Heck, I would go for Obama '12, I just think that the man needs more experience. I am familiar with his activist stances on the full gamit of foreign relations, and like I say I don't question his commitment and understanding - all I want to see is someone in power who can bring some prior experience at that level to the job. The time isn't right for vast sweepng change, and Clinton would bring a more slow-mo approach. If there could be some way that she is out of the picture for 2012, then great.
 
K

KingPaulV

Starting XI
I would agree that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be fantastic both for the voters and the nation and would assure us at least a viable presidential candidate for 2012.....However, I have to refer you to a certain fella, who surrounded himself with some of the brightest minds of his time (politically speaking) and formulated a formidable foreign policy during one of the most trying and crucial times in American and why not, world history......Kennedy.

I believe Obama is more aware than myself or yourself of his obvious shortcomings in both experience and foreing policy, that is why I would expect him to surround himself only with those who can give him straight answers and would enhance both his knowledge and capacity in dealing with the many realities of this crazy world we live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top