A Pilot's Perspective On Barack Obama

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Well - its not - was a big story even over here. But if I had to make a guess fox didn't find it newsworthy...

Of course not, but I am sure the liberal press had a field day with it and ridiculed McCain for it.

In your point of view that is not wrong though, right?

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Of course not, but I am sure the liberal press had a field day with it and ridiculed McCain for it.

In your point of view that is not wrong though, right?

Erm - don't you think that not being able to use a computer in 2008 kind of ridicules itself? However - I'll admit that this issue is borderlining what is relevant as far as politics go. But it is on the right side of the border IMO - I mean the PC is the most defining "tool" of our age and the president can't use one. I mean - Many many political decisions are influenced by computers and what they are capable of - does he know any of these things? However note that I do not make any doomsday predictions - I just find it a very important "trait" (if it can even be called that anymore) to lack.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No I do not think it ridicules itself.

He is 71 years old. My Grandmother does not know how to use a computer. Are you going to ridicule my grandmother?

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No I do not think it ridicules itself.

He is 71 years old. My Grandmother does not know how to use a computer. Are you going to ridicule my grandmother?

no ofcourse not eventhough im the evil liberal (btw my 82 Y.O. dad can use a computer). What I mean is that it would be ridiculous if the president of the USA could not use a computer in the year 2008.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It would not matter to me. If he does good for our country is all that matters to me.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

no ofcourse not eventhough im the evil liberal (btw my 82 Y.O. dad can use a computer). What I mean is that it would be ridiculous if the president of the USA could not use a computer in the year 2008.

there was a 108 years old blogger in aussie, but she died...

[renrich]

As you know, Marcel, clinton was impeached but not convicted. His crime was that he commited perjury before a court. He actually lost his law license as a result. He served out his term but could not run again by statute(two terms only) He served as president during one of those times when events in the US(and the world) were fairly tranquil. The Cold War was over, the Soviet Union had collapsed. When he took office, the economy was coming out of recession and we had a number of years of stable prices and interest rates. He got a tax hike through congress and during his terms there were several balanced budget years. There were no extraordinary expenditures. He and his wife tried to get socialised medicine passed but she was in charge of that effort and botched it (thank you.) They also tried to get laws passed where homosexuals could serve openly in the military. That idea was shot down. They also increased the role of females in the military. He and his wife were not highly regarded by our military(as Bush is.) His administration got us into the mess in Somalia and we lost some good people and pulled out. We also helped out in the Bosnia deal. There were several terrorist events while he was in office, a bomb in the Twin Trade Towers, an embassy blown up, the Cole attack, etc. but the warnings were disregarded mostly by the public, the administration and the media. Allegedly his administration knew where UBL was at one point and could have killed him but chose not to. I don't really blame him for that as most of our country was asleep on terrorism. All in all his terms were pretty sleepy except for the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton pretty much governed by wetting his finger and sticking it up to see which way the wind was blowing. A practical politician but not a leader IMO when times got hairy.

[FLYBOYJ]

Rich I think you summed that up perfectly.....

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

It would not matter to me. If he does good for our country is all that matters to me.

Yup - understandable. That goes for all these "non-political" issues (and namecalling) which are sadly the center of the debate rather than politics. But it isn't exactly the sign of a person staying up to date. However hats of for being honest (or did he just not think it was a big deal ).

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

Clinton pretty much governed by wetting his finger and sticking it up to see which way the wind was blowing. A practical politician but not a leader IMO when times got hairy.

Thanks, Renrich. I quoted the last phrase as I think we also have some of those politicians. I thus know what you mean.
For our European view, Clinton was not so bad, I think relationship between Europe and the US got better in that time. Bush his "either with or against us" politics have turned the European opinion against him, as you know. Although many Europeans agreed something had to be done, the way Bush brought that was a little disrespectful.
I earlier asked about the personal nature of US politics. This is because of the fact it's totally different in my country. We tend to associate people with their party. Therefore, many Europeans (or at least the dutch, for which I can only speak) tend to favor Democrats to Republicans. What I mean to say is that we usually tend to judge US presidents by the way they treated Europe. Obama is associated with Clinton because of party bonds, McCain to Bush, so you can understand were most of the sympathy here will lie.

Bottomline: I think these discussions between Europeans and Americans will always be very difficult because of different interests and viewpoints. Also we europeans will think from our own system which can lead to even more differences. We Europeans shouldn't be so picky on the US politics as it's different on the other side of the pool and Americans shouldn't get angry on us, because we don't know better

[renrich]

Marcel, something that might be of interest is the demographics of US voters. You may already know this but I wonder if these demographics fit the European idea of American voters. Democrat voters tend to be single issue voters. In other words a coalition of voters mainly concerned about their own particular issue coming together to vote Democrat. The racial minorities especially blacks tend to vote Democrat, Latinos not as heavy. Homosexuals tend to vote Democrat as well as labor unions, feminists and welfare recipients(to the extent they vote.) Lower incomes and many super rich tend to vote Democrat. Democrats tend to have less education except for advanced degrees where many of those vote Democrat. Women, especially young women, aside from feminists are growing more and more likely to vote Democrat. Who does that leave? Older voters, higher income voters except for the super rich, the military, small and large business owners, white collar and higher income blue collar workers are more likely to vote Republican. The top 50% of income earners pay more than 90% of the federal income tax. These people tend to vote Republican. The bottom 50% of incomes tend to vote Democrat. Many of them pay no federal income tax. If you are a white male you are more likely to vote Republican. Do those demographics fit the idea that Europeans have of the two parties?

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

Marcel, something that might be of interest is the demographics of US voters. You may already know this but I wonder if these demographics fit the European idea of American voters. Democrat voters tend to be single issue voters. In other words a coalition of voters mainly concerned about their own particular issue coming together to vote Democrat. The racial minorities especially blacks tend to vote Democrat, Latinos not as heavy. Homosexuals tend to vote Democrat as well as labor unions, feminists and welfare recipients(to the extent they vote.) Lower incomes and many super rich tend to vote Democrat. Democrats tend to have less education except for advanced degrees where many of those vote Democrat. Women, especially young women, aside from feminists are growing more and more likely to vote Democrat. Who does that leave? Older voters, higher income voters except for the super rich, the military, small and large business owners, white collar and higher income blue collar workers are more likely to vote Republican. The top 50% of income earners pay more than 90% of the federal income tax. These people tend to vote Republican. The bottom 50% of incomes tend to vote Democrat. Many of them pay no federal income tax. If you are a white male you are more likely to vote Republican. Do those demographics fit the idea that Europeans have of the two parties?

I can only speak for myself - but that is pretty much how I "imagined" it.

[ToughOmbre]

ren, your demographics hit the nail on the head.

The only problem I have with voters is when they vote "their party" regardless of candidate, political philosophy, liberal, conservative, etc. Still a lot of folks in this country that do it. Wasted votes in my opinion.

TO

[renrich]

In the US, many low income families pay no federal income tax but they do pay FICA(social security taxes.) I believe that it would be fair if a person's vote should be mutiplied by a factor taking into account the amount of federal income tax and FICA paid the year before with perhaps some kind of cap. Given my particular circumstances now I would probably not have a vote or maybe only one but I think that the people who are paying the lion's share of the tax should have a greater voice in government than those who pay little or nothing. That would tend to solve the classic problem that democracies have of the have nots voting in the people who will take from the haves to give to the have nots. Any thoughts? LOL

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

Marcel, something that might be of interest is the demographics of US voters. You may already know this but I wonder if these demographics fit the European idea of American voters. Democrat voters tend to be single issue voters. In other words a coalition of voters mainly concerned about their own particular issue coming together to vote Democrat. The racial minorities especially blacks tend to vote Democrat, Latinos not as heavy. Homosexuals tend to vote Democrat as well as labor unions, feminists and welfare recipients(to the extent they vote.) Lower incomes and many super rich tend to vote Democrat. Democrats tend to have less education except for advanced degrees where many of those vote Democrat. Women, especially young women, aside from feminists are growing more and more likely to vote Democrat. Who does that leave? Older voters, higher income voters except for the super rich, the military, small and large business owners, white collar and higher income blue collar workers are more likely to vote Republican. The top 50% of income earners pay more than 90% of the federal income tax. These people tend to vote Republican. The bottom 50% of incomes tend to vote Democrat. Many of them pay no federal income tax. If you are a white male you are more likely to vote Republican. Do those demographics fit the idea that Europeans have of the two parties?

Yeah, that's not surprising. If you don't have much money, you'll tend to vote left as they promise to care for you, it's logical. I suppose it's no coincidence that the Democrats and not the republicans are using a black candidate, eh? For the ultra rich it's also logical as it makes them seem to care about the poorer people.
I know a lot of uneducated people here in the Netherlands do vote populist parties, which we call right wing. Populists are people like Fortuyn (right, the murdered guy) and Wilder, if these names ring a bell. They are very good at pointing at the problem, but usually don't provide a longterm solutions. A bit like you described Clinton, using a wet finger and go with the flow. Now it's very popular to bash the muslims, so that's what Wilder is doing, without solving anything. Next time it will be something else. Of course we do have better right wing parties, which we oddly enough call Liberals I think they are more into the way of your republicans.