Gennifer Flowers.

[fredtoast]

Bill Clinton is one of the most popular Presidents in recent history.

Trump will get nowhere attacking Bill's past.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Many of the women I know won't support her because she's still married to Bill.

This is not true at all.  The women you know would not support her no matter what just because she is a Democrat.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-04-2016, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not true at all.  The women you know would not support her no matter what just because she is a Democrat.

Speaking of people that say many untrue things.
You are wrong again.

[*bfine32*]

[Dill]

(10-04-2016, 02:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Now why do I care. First this election probably is more important than the ones in my petty country. Second, all right-wingers in Europe hold their breath right now. If Trump wins, our political landscape will never be the same. And the style of politics will chance dramatically, too. Third, I personally believe a Trump presidency would be extremely dangerous. Fourth, I do not get why he gets a pass on everything, on the most outrageous things and saqyings, the most irresponsible, childish behaviour. I do not get why you can't see how unfit this man's character is for a presidency. That's why.

What is your "petty country"?

Just wondering. I am always curious as to how US politics appear to people outside the U.S. 
I am often surprised listening to Americans imagine how those others view us--eg. respecting "strength" or not.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-06-2016, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: What is your "petty country"?

Just wondering. I am always curious as to how US politics appear to people outside the U.S. 
I am often surprised listening to Americans imagine how those others view us--eg. respecting "strength" or not.

Austria. If I remember my high school German correctly, that would be Osterreich with an Umlaut over the "O".

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2016, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: What is your "petty country"?

Just wondering. I am always curious as to how US politics appear to people outside the U.S. 
I am often surprised listening to Americans imagine how those others view us--eg. respecting "strength" or not.

(10-06-2016, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Austria. If I remember my high school German correctly, that would be Osterreich with an Umlaut over the "O".

Indeed, Österreich.

As for how they view us form overseas, there isn't really a universal way to answer that. Most people from Europe I talk with (I spend a lot of time talking to Europeans on Reddit and via WhatsApp) they tend to think the US, if personified, would be very self-absorbed and ignorant about the rest of the world. How the left tends to think of the right is how they often think about the US as a whole. That doesn't mean all Europeans feel that way, but that's the impression most of those I talk to have of the country. Hollodero will have a better insight since he lives over there.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-06-2016, 11:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed, Österreich.

As for how they view us form overseas, there isn't really a universal way to answer that. Most people from Europe I talk with (I spend a lot of time talking to Europeans on Reddit and via WhatsApp) they tend to think the US, if personified, would be very self-absorbed and ignorant about the rest of the world. How the left tends to think of the right is how they often think about the US as a whole. That doesn't mean all Europeans feel that way, but that's the impression most of those I talk to have of the country. Hollodero will have a better insight since he lives over there.

Well as soon as they come up with an important country, we will start paying attention to them.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2016, 11:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well as soon as they come up with an important country, we will start paying attention to them.

Careful, Austria already has a bit of an inferiority complex.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-06-2016, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Careful, Austria already has a bit of an inferiority complex.

Well not Austria, they have the Von Trapps.  (Hollodero loves when we bring them up.)

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2016, 12:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well not Austria, they have the Von Trapps.  (Hollodero loves when we bring them up.)

They don't care so much about the von Trapps, but their two greatest achievements have been convincing the world that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Austrian.

I actually do really like Austria, but as far as I know I don't have any ancestors from within their present day borders.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-06-2016, 01:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They don't care so much about the von Trapps, but their two greatest achievements have been convincing the world that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Austrian.

I actually do really like Austria, but as far as I know I don't have any ancestors from within their present day borders.

Whenever I manage to get to Europe I will certainly be going to Austria.  Vienna and Salzburg look amazing.

Off topic, but that reminds me of Sheldon's (Big Bang Theory) take on cotillions.

Quote:In the South, pre-adolescent children are forced through a process called ‘cotillion’, which indoctrinates them with all the social graces and dance skills needed to function in 18th century Vienna.

[Dill]

(10-06-2016, 11:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed, Österreich.

As for how they view us form overseas, there isn't really a universal way to answer that. Most people from Europe I talk with (I spend a lot of time talking to Europeans on Reddit and via WhatsApp) they tend to think the US, if personified, would be very self-absorbed and ignorant about the rest of the world. How the left tends to think of the right is how they often think about the US as a whole. That doesn't mean all Europeans feel that way, but that's the impression most of those I talk to have of the country. Hollodero will have a better insight since he lives over there.

Well I have spent about 16 years living abroad: ten in Europe and six in the Middle-East/Central Asia, so I do have some idea how the U.S. is viewed by others, in general. 

But I have been back in the U.S. for four years, so my knowledge is somewhat dated.  I am curious about how folks abroad are viewing us now, since the rise of Trumpism. My friends in Germany, Japan, and the Middle East express puzzlement, anxiety, even fear.

What are your friends on reddit saying about the current election cycle? The Trump factor is motivating my questions here.

[Dill]

(10-06-2016, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Austria.  If I remember my high school German correctly, that would be Osterreich with an Umlaut over the "O".

Genau!

[hollodero]

(10-06-2016, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: What is your "petty country"?

Just wondering. I am always curious as to how US politics appear to people outside the U.S. 
I am often surprised listening to Americans imagine how those others view us--eg. respecting "strength" or not.

OK, the first question already got thoroughly answered. For once I will avoid the Trapp trap I somehow always end up walking into. 

(Ja, ihr geht's mir mit den blöden Trapps schon ordentlich auf den Arsch. )

And yeah it's spelled with an "Ö" at the beginning. Ö as in Motörhead.

As to your other question, I am not self-confident enough to make myself speaker of the continent. We're all quite diverse and separated by language alone, what I could say about the French or Spanish view about the US could at some point only be educated guesses as valid as anyone's. 

This being said. I, ambassador of Europe and talking on behalf of everyone here, first off claim that we do not doubt your strength. You have the hugest arsenal of state of the art weaponry available, tons of fancy stuff, and we have no doubt you would just easily wipe off any foreign army in open battle. So there's that. Then you have the cultural strength; you're pretty much our cultural hegemon at this point. Not to mention economical strength, political strength. You have that and that is not doubted.
But you're also insecure. As a society, especially. When I first came across that thought, I could not quite believe that - a lack of self-confidence, after all, never seemed to be an American problem. Now I think it's true. It would take a long passage of words to comment on all the hints and indications, the rise of a Donald being one of the more obvious ones. But I guess many people reached a similar point watching what you do and how you act in the recent past.
Which makes me wonder if the term strength shouldn't be questioned. What does it mean, what purpose does it serve and where are the benefits and has it become more of an empty phrase at this point. But since you asked.

Now for the political aspect.
Your presidential candidates pretty openly sell out to companies and rich guys to raise money. That's something we really would have to call open corruption and which would never be accepted here - we at least hide it. (I know Trump maybe didn't and Sanders claims he also didn't, and it has become a good selling point. So you're aware. You just would never accept a real solution to that). 
Then you have this strange voting system. (To be fair, the voting system of many European countries seems strange to me, too.) It's just somehow counter-intuitive that the majority in your voting district (or state) decides to whom your individual vote goes to. I mean, might be good for Ohio, swing states decide the outcome of the presidential election. No voter in Texas does. Standing in line for a vote that afterwards counts for the other team anyways doesn't really excite. Anyway, your voter turnout seems horrendous to our eyes. Nearly half ot the people don't vote. Dreadful.

And the presidential election is one thing, but especially in other elections this whole majority voting system has reached a cancerous state. Just look at gerrymandering. That is some serious abdomination towards the democratic idea. Absurd. But it won't change if the system doesn't.

Which brings me to the two-party system as clear consequence of a majority voting system. It always seemed strange that this can work in the first place. But it somehow did, probably because you were able to find bipartisan solutions and people could get over themselves or their party line. But that is gone. Now it seems you have two choices: President and Congress have the same colour, then shit gets done without hinderance (which might not be as good as it sounds). Or the colours don't match, then everything is blocked.
It's hard not to suggest you have a broader political spectrum then just red and blue. So people can vote their interest and not just the lesser of two evils. 
(And don't even mention primaries there. That's a semi-democratic process at best.) 

But concluding: Your system feels broken. When half of the people do not vote that seems like clear evidence.
I do not claim our parliamentary system or our proportional voting system is without flaws, there are tons. But when I vote, my vote counts for the party I voted for, I would be frustrated if that weren't the case. And I have at least four to five serious contenders who get their share of seats in the parliament if people vote for them. (Including the idiots who vote, which IS a flaw.) A Ralph Nader situation, where even supporters have to vote for someone else against their interest just to avoid a "bigger evil" - these instances feel utterly frustrating. Which leads to the fact that there are just Democrats and Republicans and really nothing else (except the clueless, yet entertaining clown Gary Johnson - I do know there are some, just no serious ones that don't just grasp wasted votes). 

Just imagine a "Sanders party", a Hillary party, a conservative party and a Trump party. Johnson can run too (if he makes 5%, then he gets a few seats, and why not. doubt he would in this scenario, though.) Wouldn't this election be more exciting, wouldn't that choice electrify more people? 

Damn, now I wrote a thousand words and didn't even get to the elephant. Which is you need to stop regarding your constitution as if it came directly from God. Things like an electoral college or the idea of forming a militia etc. had its real purpose in 1800, but now it's just pointless. I would have liked to stress this point about the constitution, but well. Already a thousand words. In a thread about Gennifer Flowers.

(10-07-2016, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: But I have been back in the U.S. for four years, so my knowledge is somewhat dated.  I am curious about how folks abroad are viewing us now, since the rise of Trumpism. My friends in Germany, Japan, and the Middle East express puzzlement, anxiety, even fear.

I want to express these notions as well.
I tried to lay out my view on that in another thread at full length, I don't like to repeat myself. European right-wing populism is what I compare Trump to.

[Dill]

(10-07-2016, 10:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, the first question already got thoroughly answered. For once I will avoid the Trapp trap I somehow always end up walking into. 

(Ja, ihr geht's mir mit den blöden Trapps schon ordentlich auf den Arsch. )

And yeah it's spelled with an "Ö" at the beginning. Ö as in Motörhead.

It's hard not to suggest you have a broader political spectrum then just red and blue. So people can vote their interest and not just the lesser of two evils. 
(And don't even mention primaries there. That's a semi-democratic process at best.) 

But concluding: Your system feels broken. When half of the people do not vote that seems like clear evidence.
I do not claim our parliamentary system or our proportional voting system is without flaws, there are tons. But when I vote, my vote counts for the party I voted for, I would be frustrated if that weren't the case. And I have at least four to five serious contenders who get their share of seats in the parliament if people vote for them. (Including the idiots who vote, which IS a flaw.) A Ralph Nader situation, where even supporters have to vote for someone else against their interest just to avoid a "bigger evil" - these instances feel utterly frustrating. Which leads to the fact that there are just Democrats and Republicans and really nothing else (except the clueless, yet entertaining clown Gary Johnson - I do know there are some, just no serious ones that don't just grasp wasted votes). 

Just imagine a "Sanders party", a Hillary party, a conservative party and a Trump party. Johnson can run too (if he makes 5%, then he gets a few seats, and why not. doubt he would in this scenario, though.) Wouldn't this election be more exciting, wouldn't that choice electrify more people? 

Damn, now I wrote a thousand words and didn't even get to the elephant. Which is you need to stop regarding your constitution as if it came directly from God. Things like an electoral college or the idea of forming a militia etc. had its real purpose in 1800, but now it's just pointless. I would have liked to stress this point about the constitution, but well. Already a thousand words. In a thread about Gennifer Flowers.

Thanks much Hollodero. This was above and beyond the call. (Die berumhte deutsche Gruendlichkeit gilt auch fuer Oesterricher, ich vermute!)

I share many of your views regarding the parliamentary system; I would add that the public becomes better informed when there is real, differentiated and articulated political spectrum before it. Without that we hear centrist Democrats regularly called "socialists"; our political discourse is often muddy, insufficient to the task of clarifying options and consequences.

My mention of "strength" was in scare quotes; a segment of our electorate believes we must affirm our power in word and deed or others will "test" us. If Putin invades a former satellite or Iran Pakistan threatens India or North Korea detonates a nuke or ISIS moves into the Levant it is because they all perceive Obama as "weak." Our European allies will feel safer if we bluster and rattle our saber. The bad guys will retreat. The addition of another aircraft carrier and two more nuclear subs to our navy will make ISIS think twice before attacking Americans.  Diplomacy=weakness. Even people in "petty" countries will no longer respect us if we seek peaceful solutions to conflict. No more apologizing for America!

Were I European, I would be anxious and wondering what sort of history is, or isn't, taught in U.S. Schools. Why is our press, with so little to fear compared to Russia or Iran, so timid?

[*wildcats forever*]

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: Thanks much Hollodero. This was above and beyond the call. (Die berumhte deutsche Tuetigkeit gilt auch fuer Oesterricher, ich vermute!)

I share many of your views regarding the parliamentary system; I would add that the public becomes better informed when there is real, differentiated and articulated political spectrum before it. Without that we hear centrist Democrats regularly called "socialists"; our political discourse is often muddy, insufficient to the task of clarifying options and consequences.

My mention of "strength" was in scare quotes; a segment of our electorate believes we must affirm our power in word and deed or others will "test" us. If Putin invades a former satellite or Iran Pakistan threatens India or North Korea detonates a nuke or ISIS moves into the Levant it is because they all perceive Obama as "weak." Our European allies will feel safer if we bluster and rattle our saber. The bad guys will retreat. The addition of another aircraft carrier and two more nuclear subs to our navy will make ISIS think twice before attacking Americans.  Diplomacy=weakness. Even people in "petty" countries will no longer respect us if we seek peaceful solutions to conflict. No more apologizing for America!

Were I European, I would be anxious and wondering what sort of history is, or isn't, taught in U.S. Schools. Why is our press, with so little to fear compared to Russia or Iran,  so timid?

I believe the answer has become a simple one. Our "press" is America's corporate newsletter. Don't cross the Chairman of the Board is the new mission statement. 

[hollodero]

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: Thanks much Hollodero. This was above and beyond the call. (Die berumhte deutsche Tuetigkeit gilt auch fuer Oesterricher, ich vermute!)

Your welcome.
And I know politeness would demand that I applaud your German here, but I'm no liar :) I got what you said, though. Answer, we are not known as particularly hard working people and we also generally do not like to be compared to Germans :)

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: I share many of your views regarding the parliamentary system; I would add that the public becomes better informed when there is real, differentiated and articulated political spectrum before it.

Yeah well, maybe, don't overestimate that aspect though.

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: Without that we hear centrist Democrats regularly called "socialists"; our political discourse is often muddy, insufficient to the task of clarifying options and consequences.

Yeah well, that is of course nonsense. There is no left wing and no socialist party in the US and Americans seem to use that term as an expletive. Your democrats much more resemble our conservative parties while your republicans resemble nothing here; Nader, Edwards and Sanders are the only ones I know that might be called left in the first place. Trump resembles Le Pen, Farage and those people. But these classifications in a political spectrum also do not clarify anything.

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: My mention of "strength" was in scare quotes; a segment of our electorate believes we must affirm our power in word and deed or others will "test" us. If Putin invades a former satellite or Iran Pakistan threatens India or North Korea detonates a nuke or ISIS moves into the Levant it is because they all perceive Obama as "weak." Our European allies will feel safer if we bluster and rattle our saber. The bad guys will retreat. The addition of another aircraft carrier and two more nuclear subs to our navy will make ISIS think twice before attacking Americans.  Diplomacy=weakness. Even people in "petty" countries will no longer respect us if we seek peaceful solutions to conflict. No more apologizing for America!

Yeah, I heard that... I feel like I might burn my fingers here. I mean, this whole power affirmation point, although I dislike it, is not completely moot in the first place and I have to admit that. Which makes this debate tricky.
We are overall glad that you are there and that you are in some cases willing to intervene. We couldn't. I always get severely booed by almost everyone here (so I do not talk for the whole Europe here, for a change) when I say our own lack of real military potential is an awful thing and we need to build armies, that this is one of the major reasons why we need to be united as Europe. People here tend to deny that because "war is bad" and the US does it for us anyways - while we do nothing and just make gleeful comments when your interventions go wrong. But thanks for Kosovo, that was necessary, we couldn't do it, we couldn't stop the cruelty, still people back then actually said where is America and why have these clowns not done something earlier. In our own back yard. Pathetic.
So well, if you weren't here... we would have quite a different "Yugoslavia" region, that was a good thing. We would have quite a different middle east, and that is more ambivalent. I have no idea what kind of Russia we would be facing now if NATO, which means US presence and protection, didn't exist. And I'm glad about not knowing that, so yes, your strength is important.
What's torpedoing this strength are of course failures like Iraq (and we generally do not have two opinions on that one) and we don't think it's necessary to show these kinds of cojones. We're glad Obama didn't start a new war like that. But there won't be diplomacy without military strength to put weight on your position in negotiations. A "military intervention is not an option" position is somehow double-edged. I hate all the words I said here, and I'm all for peaceful solutions and would protest for them, but I can't just deny it. The willingness to as a last resort make use of the military might be just a necessity when dealing with "bad guys". Sanctions might not do it. (Good work on Iran, though. Kudos.)
So here's the actual point. We know, at least I know, there are people in this world that you would call "bad". We do not doubt that Saddam ISIS etc. are "bad guys". Despite all, we are just not so sure if you are the ultimate "good guys". We know you're less bad, for sure, you're inherently better, we would always choose you over anyone to run the global show. But you do have your dark spots and especially Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and all the torturing taking place really had a bad impact on your reputation as "the good guys". On the respect we feel for you. I'm not sure if the American people are fully aware of that.

So well, Europe. We do not really need you to "rattle your sword" and bomb someone once in a while so we are assured you still are capable of bombing someone. But we sure need you to be able to. We also need you to spend huge amounts of money in your military to keep your supremacy - so we feel safe and can use our money to spend on social security and our welfare state instead and making fun of you not reaching our social standards. But sometimes we also feel (as you do, obviously) that you overdo it. Many wars nowadays aren't fought by aircraft carriers, you know that and I do, too. But still. This is a hot iron and only the sincere man can carry it the whole nine yards (or so) - and I certainly can't.

(10-08-2016, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: Were I European, I would be anxious and wondering what sort of history is, or isn't, taught in U.S. Schools. Why is our press, with so little to fear compared to Russia or Iran,  so timid?

I'm happy if you do not teach creationism, for starters.
I don't really know where you are going here, maybe I'm underinformed about the timidness you refer to. So I have nothing clever to add for now (which I seldomly have, but here that fact actually makes me shut up for once.)

[Dill]

(10-08-2016, 01:50 AM)hollodero Wrote: Despite all, we are just not so sure if you are the ultimate "good guys". We know you're less bad, for sure, you're inherently better, we would always choose you over anyone to run the global show. But you do have your dark spots and especially Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and all the torturing taking place really had a bad impact on your reputation as "the good guys". On the respect we feel for you. I'm not sure if the American people are fully aware of that.

So well, Europe. We do not really need you to "rattle your sword" and bomb someone once in a while so we are assured you still are capable of bombing someone. But we sure need you to be able to. We also need you to spend huge amounts of money in your military to keep your supremacy - so we feel safe and can use our money to spend on social security and our welfare state instead and making fun of you not reaching our social standards. But sometimes we also feel (as you do, obviously) that you overdo it. Many wars nowadays aren't fought by aircraft carriers, you know that and I do, too. But still. This is a hot iron and only the sincere man can carry it the whole nine yards (or so) - and I certainly can't.

I don't think we need to be the "ultimate" good guys. But respectful partners is be a good start.

You don't think we should rattle our sword, but one of our presidential candidates is already doing that, and insisting our NATO partners pay up, and suggesting Japan could build its own nuclear deterrent.
I was going to say more on that subject, but given the events of the last few hours, I think our demagogue may be bowing out this week, mooting the issues I wasraising.

Anyway, i really appreciate your answers.

PS I was living in Germany when the Yugoslav war began. One difference between German and US Press coverage was that Germans showed much more graphic images and video footage; also German's felt the war more directly. Some refugees entered the country and Yugoslavia was a beloved vacation destination--now inaccessible.  The U.S. is so distanced from most world conflicts today, and our media representation of war is so filtered, that we are slow to react when we might do good and reluctant to followup (nation-building).  The one exception is 9/11 and the schizophrenic response.

[hollodero]

(10-08-2016, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think we need to be the "ultimate" good guys.

Well, it wouldn't hurt...!

(10-08-2016, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: But respectful partners is be a good start.

To be blunt. We lately tend to respect you when a democrat is president. It's just how it is. We're still partners in any times, of course. We just always root for the democrat and we consider them being "better" guys. Republican presidents tend to try pressuring us into things and plant their world view on us.
To use a really broad brush.

(10-08-2016, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: You don't think we should rattle our sword, but one of our presidential candidates is already doing that, and insisting our NATO partners pay up, and suggesting Japan could build its own nuclear deterrent.

When I listened to the debate (oh yeah), that was the only point... I wouldn't go as far as to say he actually had one... but the only point where I didn't think that everything he said was completely appalling to the intellect. Of course that Japan nukes thing is BS; but although I do not know about the payment structures in NATO, I do know that I feel safe and that my country doesn't do squat for that. You indeed take care of us for free; guess we are just "geographically lucky".
Yes, the truth is much more complex, but it being simplistic doesn't make it completely untrue. If the US were to abandon Europe, we really couldn't do much if Putin rolled over the baltic states and marched right through Poland.
Trump just wants more money for protection. I figure.
Anyway, I'd guess 90% or more of people who care (which are very few people, we are just as uninformed as your voters) are for Hillary. Which is tough for us, because about the same percentage probably do not like Hillary. I certainly don't. But still, there's just a narcissistic madman instead, so it's Hillary all the way. If you wanted to know about that.

(10-08-2016, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: I was going to say more on that subject, but given the events of the last few hours, I think our demagogue may be bowing out this week, mooting the issues I wasraising.

Because of that groping women thing?
I don't know... as disgusting as he and all of that is... he seems to survive everything.

(10-08-2016, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: PS I was living in Germany when the Yugoslav war began. One difference between German and US Press coverage was that Germans showed much more graphic images and video footage; also German's felt the war more directly. Some refugees entered the country and Yugoslavia was a beloved vacation destination--now inaccessible.  The U.S. is so distanced from most world conflicts today, and our media representation of war is so filtered, that we are slow to react when we might do good and reluctant to followup (nation-building).  The one exception is 9/11 and the schizophrenic response.

Still, better late than never. And despite our empathy, "never" would have been and was Europe's response. To this very day I think that we should have been ashamed of our continent there.