US Presidential Elections 2012

[Ohio Saint]

I was speaking with a staunchly Republican colleague a couple of hours ago. He is in mourning. He genuinely believes that this is the end of the Republican party, citing the growth in the Latino population as you have. The make-up of the US population is changing rapidly; it's one of the most fascinating things about the place. From my experience, the North is much better integrated than the South, but everywhere you go, you see an abundance of Latinos in low-paying or menial jobs. I've found the social stratification to be a little unnerving. I think I need to go to Miami or Arizona for a pallet-cleanser.

 

Another issue is co-ordinated migration. African Americans are moving back to the South en masse. Many places already have the ridiculous "majority minority" tag, a term which in itself, shows how predominant White American culture is over there. The rise of a black middle class and black mayors in southern cities is encouraging, but in general, the US is needless and dangerously segregated. Right now, the blame culture seems confined to bars and presidential elections, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it leads to a civil war down the line. Probably not in my lifetime, but all the seeds for conflict are there. It's going to be difficult for the White American population to continue to view the Latinos as untermenschen when the population is 65%-70%.

 

Again. A well considered post that is not pulled from an Alpine arse. I have nothing to add but my admiration.

[alpine_saint]

Again. A well considered post that is not pulled from an Alpine arse. I have nothing to add but my admiration.

 

Deary me. Touched a nerve, have I ?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

OMG!!!!

 

just seen Romney's loser speech - HE WAS USING GLASS SCREEN AUTOCUES!!!!!!!1 if he can't do a loser speech without an autocue then he obviously wasn't suited to becoming President.

[Jonnyboy]

Yeah they should be plastic screens ffs!

[Hamilton Saint]

I was speaking with a staunchly Republican colleague a couple of hours ago. He is in mourning. He genuinely believes that this is the end of the Republican party, citing the growth in the Latino population as you have. The make-up of the US population is changing rapidly; it's one of the most fascinating things about the place. From my experience, the North is much better integrated than the South, but everywhere you go, you see an abundance of Latinos in low-paying or menial jobs. I've found the social stratification to be a little unnerving. I think I need to go to Miami or Arizona for a pallet-cleanser.

 

Another issue is co-ordinated migration. African Americans are moving back to the South en masse. Many places already have the ridiculous "majority minority" tag, a term which in itself, shows how predominant White American culture is over there. The rise of a black middle class and black mayors in southern cities is encouraging, but in general, the US is needless and dangerously segregated. Right now, the blame culture seems confined to bars and presidential elections, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it leads to a civil war down the line. Probably not in my lifetime, but all the seeds for conflict are there. It's going to be difficult for the White American population to continue to view the Latinos as untermenschen when the population is 65%-70%.

 

It probably marks the end of the Republican Party as we've seen it for the last few elections. They need to throw off the far-right extremists of the Tea Party-variety. Romney probably lost the election when he bought into the anti-immigration rhetoric of the far-right during the primaries. Latinos felt very threatened by that rhetoric.

 

The percentage of the white vote is steadily shrinking. The Republican Party needs to adjust and move towards the centre. They're too dominated now by that shrill, bombastic, extremist crap that gets spewed on talk radio every day in the U.S. and on Fox News TV.

 

Obama won because he retained the coalition he built during the last election - and because his strategists planned a brilliant campaign that focused on retaining his vote in all the crucial states that he had to hold on to: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc. The way that campaigns may go in the future was signalled in places like Colorado. The urban, suburban, and growing Hispanic vote leading to a win in a state that is primarily rural and, therefore, Republican everywhere outside the cities. It was the same story in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania, in Virginia. Obama held on to just about all those key, highly-populated areas in the swing-states.

 

Given the economic situation in the country, Romney really should have won, but his campaign just didn't deliver. He was just too untrustworthy. Spent too long portraying himself during the primaries as a red-meat right-winger, and then swinging sharply to the centre during the latter part of the campaign, contradicting much of what he'd said earlier in the campaign.

Edited 7 November, 2012 by Hamilton Saint

[Hamilton Saint]

Four more years of Blair-like governance for the US. All fart and no sh*t.

 

Four more years of obsessing over Asia and negelct over Europe.

 

Four more years of asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations.

 

Four more years of US mis-treatment of its closest ally because of a colossal chip on the shoulder of Mr. President.

 

Four more years of impotent US governance due to the Republican majority in the House.

 

Obama is a f**king useless public speaker without his little glass screens in front of him, as was proven in the first televised debate.

 

 

"asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations" - what does that mean?

 

"its closest ally"? - who do you mean? (It's Canada, by the way.)

 

"Obama is a f**king useless public speaker" - are you crazy? He is a superb orator. Didn't you watch his speech last night? It was riveting. His debating skills are nowhere near as good, but as a "public speaker" (orator) he is hard to beat. Think about it, his rapid rise to prominence was built on one brilliant speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I am not convinced we are witnessing the demise of the GOP. They fielded a weak candidate particularly in the present climate.6 months ago I'm sure they had written this one off. The Hispanic vote is always going to be a tricky one for them because of immigration. Having worked in South Florida for a number of years, immigration is the absolute number one issue for them.

 

It really does depend on the candidates selected next time, run with Hillary Clinton and the race will be open. There was a bit of unique situation this time, 4 years is a long time, maybe a moderate Latino republican may emerge.

[Saint in Paradise]

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

 

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

 

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

 

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”

 

 

The (American) Obituary follows: Born 1776, Died 2008

 

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

 

Number of States won by:

Obama: 19

McCain: 29

 

Square miles of land won by:

Obama: 580,000

McCain: 2,427,000

 

Population of counties won by:

Obama: 127 million

McCain: 143 million

 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2

McCain: 2.1

 

 

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...”

 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Rome fell for a number of reasons, including one very large factor (which I'm simplifying here) - after it could no longer man its legions with Roman citizens, (too many of whom who wanted to enjoy the good life Rome offered without first contributing anything towards making that good life possible), it manned its legions with paid mercenaries from among the peoples it had conquered in the outer provinces of its empire. Many of those people, after serving in the Legions, eventually came to Rome - with their families - and demanded the lifestyle that Roman citizens had enjoyed until the system could not cope and collapsed.

 

So let's see, what did they end up with?

 

- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

 

Does that remind anyone here of anywhere they know, maybe live in?

[buctootim]

New Zealand.

[saintbletch]

George W accidentally votes for Obama.

 

That's almost unbelievable.

[Tokyo-Saint]

George W accidentally votes for Obama.

 

That's almost unbelievable.

 

We need him in the muppet show. I guess what I am saying is that I miss dune.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

S in P, sounds like its time to don your camo gear, grab an assault rifle and join Dune to hunker down your backwoods bunker.

[dubai_phil]

George W accidentally votes for Obama.

 

That's almost unbelievable.

 

Sadly, it is all too believable

[Saint in Paradise]

I was waiting for someone to say England actually as when I was last there it seemed to be like that then.

 

"- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern

day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

[alpine_saint]

Saint in Paradise, you are spot on and I for one immediately thought of the UK (not England, because the Scottish are by far the culprits in the UK for living off state handouts).

 

The bottom line is, whilst the likes of China and India power ahead, realising still what we knew over 100 years ago, and the US over 60 years ago - that propserity for all is built upon enterrpise, blood, sweat and minimal state intervention - both of our once-great nations have slumped into an entitlement culture that is gradually bankrupting us. Just like the British Empire declined, the US economic empire is in decline, and this election may have been the last chance to stem the tide over there.

[pap]

Large lols at the idea of Latinos being lazy and wanting to get something for nothing, SiP.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

SiP, when Alpine agrees with you it's high time to take a good look at yourself.

[alpine_saint]

Large lols at the idea of Latinos being lazy and wanting to get something for nothing, SiP.

 

Who pointed the finger at Hispanics ? If the UK is anything to go by, the worst culprits are white trailer-trash.

[alpine_saint]

SiP, when Alpine agrees with you it's high time to take a good look at yourself.

 

Oh, grow up. If you want a discussion, fine, otherwise go and shout abuse at a mirror.

[hypochondriac]

Saint in Paradise, you are spot on and I for one immediately thought of the UK (not England, because the Scottish are by far the culprits in the UK for living off state handouts).

 

The bottom line is, whilst the likes of China and India power ahead, realising still what we knew over 100 years ago, and the US over 60 years ago - that propserity for all is built upon enterrpise, blood, sweat and minimal state intervention - both of our once-great nations have slumped into an entitlement culture that is gradually bankrupting us. Just like the British Empire declined, the US economic empire is in decline, and this election may have been the last chance to stem the tide over there.

 

Are you seriously suggesting there is minimal state intervention in China?

[alpine_saint]

Are you seriously suggesting there is minimal state intervention in China?

 

Depends what you mean by state intervention, I suppose.

 

The Chinese government isnt exactly intervening about workers conditions at that massive factory turning out iPhones.

 

Whereas imo most Chinese who are involved in important R & D projects in Western universities and companies probably have some contact with the Chinese government. Is that state intervention too ?

 

They dont seem to care about the concept of intellectual property over there.

[pap]

I was waiting for someone to say England actually as when I was last there it seemed to be like that then.

 

"- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern

day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

 

Who pointed the finger at Hispanics ? If the UK is anything to go by, the worst culprits are white trailer-trash.

 

Do you actually read anything anyone writes, sir? Like, properly?

[pap]

Depends what you mean by state intervention, I suppose.

 

The Chinese government isnt exactly intervening about workers conditions at that massive factory turning out iPhones.

 

Whereas imo most Chinese who are involved in important R & D projects in Western universities and companies probably have some contact with the Chinese government. Is that state intervention too ?

 

They dont seem to care about the concept of intellectual property over there.

 

I doubt there is a single market-led economy in the world that has a higher level of state intervention than China. This is a country where "playing the stock market" just means buying into state-owned firms, which you know will never go bust, because they'll always be backed by the state.

[alpine_saint]

Do you actually read anything anyone writes, sir? Like, properly?

 

RMLAFO. You quote something, and it still doesnt refer to Hispanics.

 

Deffo a pot, black, kettle moment there...

[alpine_saint]

I doubt there is a single market-led economy in the world that has a higher level of state intervention than China. This is a country where "playing the stock market" just means buying into state-owned firms, which you know will never go bust, because they'll always be backed by the state.

 

Nevertheless, this "intervention" is all about projecting Chinese economic power. Its not about taxation and strangling activity with bureaucratic red tape, like it is in the West.

[pap]

RMLAFO. You quote something, and it still doesnt refer to Hispanics.

 

Deffo a pot, black, kettle moment there...

 

Hmm, I wonder who else they could have meant then?

 

Perhaps they were referring to those pesky Canadians? Or European workers arriving on H1B or L1 visas ( y'know, the ones in which you lose your job, you're proper f**ked ).

 

I quite enjoyed your post though, Alps. In terms of "fave posts where Alps has been deliberately dense to prove a point he can't make", it's in the top 100.

[alpine_saint]

Hmm, I wonder who else they could have meant then?

 

Perhaps they were referring to those pesky Canadians? Or European workers arriving on H1B or L1 visas ( y'know, the ones in which you lose your job, you're proper f**ked ).

 

I quite enjoyed your post though, Alps. In terms of "fave posts where Alps has been deliberately dense to prove a point he can't make", it's in the top 100.

 

And I enjoyed yours too. In terms of "pap gets abusive in response to his post been found out to be complete b*ll*cks", its in the top, erm, one.

[dubai_phil]

Nevertheless, this "intervention" is all about projecting Chinese economic power. Its not about taxation and strangling activity with bureaucratic red tape, like it is in the West.

 

 

It's all about corruption of course. Like just about every other East of Frankfurt Nation

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9661499/US-election-2012-A-good-day-for-David-Cameron-but-a-rout-for-the-Tory-Rights-vision.html

 

The final lesson for Mr Cameron will be the most welcome. Ever since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a succession of presidents and prime ministers have been driven from office by the recession. Mr Obama’s victory, however, shows that an incumbent can win: in the privacy of the voting booth, Americans blamed George W Bush, not his successor, for the economic slowdown. David Cameron will be hoping that in 2015, British voters remember the Gordon Brown premiership, and give the Tories the benefit of the doubt as they try to rebuild the economy.Over the past few decades, observers have tended to assume that the party system in the United States mirrors British politics, meaning that Labour is the natural ally of the Democrats, while the Conservatives are broadly sympathetic to the Republicans. The truth is that the Tories have always been ideologically much closer to – even to the Left of – the Democrats. The Republicans, as now constituted, represent a set of ideas that cut little ice in mainstream British politics. Indeed, David Cameron has occasionally remarked that his own party, with its unflagging support for state spending on schools and education, would be regarded as socialist in Republican circles.

This is why Mr Cameron’s sympathy with Barack Obama, unlike Tony Blair’s understanding with George Bush, has never been based on cynical power worship, or even pragmatism. It stems from a genuine ideological sympathy, despite the fact that many of President Obama’s ideas, for instance on human rights, are far more Right-wing than anything the Conservatives would countenance. Moreover, the language of the two leaders has become strikingly similar. Mr Obama’s victory speech, with its insistence that the American people are all in it together, bore a number of resemblances to Mr Cameron’s masterful oratory at Conservative conference.

History has plenty of rather flattering examples of Conservative prime ministers building a lasting relationship with Democratic presidents: Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy, or Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Neither President Obama nor David Cameron can yet be spoken of in this company. Nevertheless, they have enjoyed a warm relationship since Mr Cameron’s days in Opposition. The Obama White House will be well aware that Mr Cameron took sides in the election, and will be duly grateful. Strange though it sounds to say so, victory for the Democrats is among the best news David Cameron has had since the formation of the Coalition more than two years ago.

Edited 8 November, 2012 by trousers

[pap]

And I enjoyed yours too. In terms of "pap gets abusive in response to his post been found out to be complete b*ll*cks", its in the top, erm, one.

 

Arf.

 

Don't really think my post is abusive. However, if you weren't being deliberately thick, and are in fact, very actually thick - I retract my statement. So which is it?

[alpine_saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9661499/US-election-2012-A-good-day-for-David-Cameron-but-a-rout-for-the-Tory-Rights-vision.html

 

B*ll*cks. what a load of b*ll*cks.

 

Stop clutching to this "special relationship" crap, Britain.

 

Watch Obama turn round in the next couple of weeks and slap us down on any from a multitude of issues; from Gary McKinnon to the Falklands.

[pap]

B*ll*cks. what a load of b*ll*cks.

 

Stop clutching to this "special relationship" crap, Britain.

 

Watch Obama turn round in the next couple of weeks and slap us down on any from a multitude of issues; from Gary McKinnon to the Falklands.

 

"United States policy is exaggeratedly moral, at least where non-American interests are concerned"

 

Anthony Eden said that. True then and true now.

[alpine_saint]

"United States policy is exaggeratedly moral, at least where non-American interests are concerned"

 

Anthony Eden said that. True then and true now.

 

Yep. The scales have really fallen from my eyes over this in the last couple of years.

 

America has no friends. Only relationships to exploit.

 

I was reading up about the history of the Manhattan Project recently. They would never have got LittleBoy and FatMan ready in time without the support of our Tube Alloys scientists (at the time the US decided to take Manhattan seriously, we were further ahead). Once they got the thing ready, they shut us out of the research results, managed to stop British scientists seeing the Hiroshima detonation (despite Presidential order from Truman) and almost managed to prevent our scientists seeing Nagasaki too.

 

We had to reverse-engineer the entire device for Operaton Hurricane.

Edited 8 November, 2012 by alpine_saint

[Frank's cousin]

Certain views on this thread just highlight how traditional party based aliegence/policy adherence is simply out of step with realtiy, be it left or right in its doctrine. Old school party types of whatever distinction that lack repsect for the opposition and fail to recognise that all parties tend to have something that is positive in a modern society, need to re-evaluate their political thinking IMHO. Respect in politics seems impossible, yet you need it for effective debate - debate designed to pressure test policy and ensure final legislation is fair, balanced and in the best interests of the population, not of party members - and is the real base of democracy - we elect politicians to represent US, not their own interests. I expect thsoe I vote for to be challenged on policy, to debate it as adults and see how it can be improved by the ADDITION or subtraction of elements that may well come from outside teh pary as well as from within.

 

Blind follwing of left or right or 'centre' is simply ignorant. Some of teh sweeping assumptions made on this thread see to suggest a rather ignorant, simplistic, naive and out of touch attitide to politics - sadly that is most often reflected in politicians themselves so its not surprizing so many switch off, lose interest and have no faith in Government of any pursausion.

[ecuk268]

America has no friends. Only relationships to exploit.

 

It's never been any other way.

 

Clive Ponting's book "1940" details how Churchill was royally shafted over lend-lease by Roosevelt and throughout the Cold War the US was determined to ensure that any conflict short of all out war would be fought in Europe.

[toofarnorth]

I was waiting for someone to say England actually as when I was last there it seemed to be like that then.

 

"- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern

day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

 

Not the England I see i'm afraid. Amidst the hysteria of recession, life has continued as normal for the vast majority of the population in the comfort of the labour years. Any anxiety is just as likely a result of the frenzy whippped up by our sensationalist media.

 

The one area where we are failing is housing. There needs to be a huge increase in the housing supply bringing the down the average prices of homes.

 

Life aint all that bad in blighty.

[solentstars]

I was waiting for someone to say England actually as when I was last there it seemed to be like that then.

 

"- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern

day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

sorry that's not the England I see but it depends on whether your a pessimist or optimist.I think this is a great country.it just needs the very richest in our country just like usa to stop avoiding tax and placeing a bigger burden on the middle class and small business.

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Edited 8 November, 2012 by solentstars

[Lord Duckhunter]

I was waiting for someone to say England actually as when I was last there it seemed to be like that then.

 

"- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern

day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

 

"Non citizen's demanding the same thing". They do flock in, but not demanding anything (apart from a few exceptions). They just end up getting corrupted by the Welfare system.

 

The Native citizens bit is the key. I dont think it's "without contributing first", "but expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire)" is spot on. Not a day goes by without someone asking "what is the Government doing about XYZ". Look at the howls of outrage when rich people had their family benefit taken away, when rich old people, after years of booming house prices, endowments and final salary pensions were asked to pay slightly more tax. Turn on Question Time any week and there will be some comfortabley well off person ( do those living in povety appear in the QT audiance) moaning about their lot " I haven't had a pay rise for 2 years", "why should I pay an extra 2% for my pension", "why should I pay for my further education", before the final QT rallying call of "I didn't cause the recession, why should I be punished". Bet you there will be someone on there tonight with some "woe is me" tale to tell. It's always the same. Cant afford to run a car, what is the GovT doing about it, cant afford a house, what is the Govt doing about it, cant afford another child, to live in a £800,000 London house, to buy a pasty, to fund my pension pot, what is the Govt doing about it? We're not talking about people going without food, just people not prepared to make sacrifices and go without stuff. All people seem to want to do is load our children and grandchildren with more national debt to pay for our luxeries.

 

You end up with the ridiculous situation that provided you bribe enough of the electorate at both ends of the scale, with tax cuts & handouts, you'll get elected. People are being bribed with their own money and somehow think it's a good deal.

[the stain]

The Chinese are well known for their lack of state intervention.

[pap]

Yep. The scales have really fallen from my eyes over this in the last couple of years.

 

America has no friends. Only relationships to exploit.

 

I was reading up about the history of the Manhattan Project recently. They would never have got LittleBoy and FatMan ready in time without the support of our Tube Alloys scientists (at the time the US decided to take Manhattan seriously, we were further ahead). Once they got the thing ready, they shut us out of the research results, managed to stop British scientists seeing the Hiroshima detonation (despite Presidential order from Truman) and almost managed to prevent our scientists seeing Nagasaki too.

 

We had to reverse-engineer the entire device for Operaton Hurricane.

 

Blimey, Alps; you've certainly changed your tune. I seem to remember getting several "Austrian grills" over being an anti-American. I'm really not; I work with loads of Americans - I love how passionate and optimistic they can be about things; they deal with both concepts in a way that we Brits cannot. I get emotion-lag every time I get back to the UK; getting used to the misery of being European again.

 

That said, for all the hype about being the greatest democracy in the world, real power in the US resides in corporate entities and landed wealth, two areas that often intersect and often take priority over all else. The Iraq War served corporate interests as well as strategic ones. No-bid contracts being handed to Cheney's former company Halliburton, the rise of the private military and of course, the oil.

 

The special relationship is a euphemistic band-aid to help us Europeans get over the fact that we've been greased so many times. America's place as a world super-power rests not in its vast resources, its cultural output or its military force. It rests on sitting back during WW2; staying neutral, selling people a sh!tload of arms, then entering on their own terms. I know people will throw Pearl Harbor out there; the Japanese might have thought they'd achieved complete surprise. I'm not so sure. Roosevelt had wanted into the war for a long time; knew what he wanted out of it and though he never lived to see it, got his wish in the end. Empires dismantled. America and the Soviet Union emerge as twin superpowers.

 

My Republican mate is one of these people who truly believes that the rest of the world owes the US something for saving Europe from the Nazis / Cold War / etc. There's no denying that, but it irks me when its suggested that the motives were entirely altruistic. Both the US and USSR derived massive benefits from their respective spheres of influence. The US especially benefited from the Western European powers losing their empires. I'm not much of an imperialist, but there's no denying that if the likes of Britain and France had somehow managed to revive the fortunes of their neglected Empires, the balance of power would be very different to what it is today.

[pap]

"Non citizen's demanding the same thing". They do flock in, but not demanding anything (apart from a few exceptions). They just end up getting corrupted by the Welfare system.

 

The Native citizens bit is the key. I dont think it's "without contributing first", "but expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire)" is spot on. Not a day goes by without someone asking "what is the Government doing about XYZ". Look at the howls of outrage when rich people had their family benefit taken away, when rich old people, after years of booming house prices, endowments and final salary pensions were asked to pay slightly more tax. Turn on Question Time any week and there will be some comfortabley well off person ( do those living in povety appear in the QT audiance) moaning about their lot " I haven't had a pay rise for 2 years", "why should I pay an extra 2% for my pension", "why should I pay for my further education", before the final QT rallying call of "I didn't cause the recession, why should I be punished". Bet you there will be someone on there tonight with some "woe is me" tale to tell. It's always the same. Cant afford to run a car, what is the GovT doing about it, cant afford a house, what is the Govt doing about it, cant afford another child, to live in a £800,000 London house, to buy a pasty, to fund my pension pot, what is the Govt doing about it? We're not talking about people going without food, just people not prepared to make sacrifices and go without stuff. All people seem to want to do is load our children and grandchildren with more national debt to pay for our luxeries.

 

You end up with the ridiculous situation that provided you bribe enough of the electorate at both ends of the scale, with tax cuts & handouts, you'll get elected. People are being bribed with their own money and somehow think it's a good deal.

 

Lord D, I think you should watch the first episode of this year's Harry & Paul. It has a Question Time spoof which I suspect most people would find desperately unfunny, but I believe would hit quite a few of your notes. Very brave comedy, going on about the Question Time crowd - there's only so many people that'll get it.

 

That said, when minimum wage doesn't meet living costs; whaddya do?

[Jonnyboy]

Hey it would be cool if Alpine moved to China or India, I hear they are very up and coming.

[Hamilton Saint]

 

...

 

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...”

 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Rome fell for a number of reasons, including one very large factor (which I'm simplifying here) - after it could no longer man its legions with Roman citizens, (too many of whom who wanted to enjoy the good life Rome offered without first contributing anything towards making that good life possible), it manned its legions with paid mercenaries from among the peoples it had conquered in the outer provinces of its empire. Many of those people, after serving in the Legions, eventually came to Rome - with their families - and demanded the lifestyle that Roman citizens had enjoyed until the system could not cope and collapsed.

 

So let's see, what did they end up with?

 

- native citizens expecting the government to give them everything they require (and desire) without contributing anything first,

- non citizens flocking in to the centre of empire demanding the same thing,

- governments, unable to provide said goodies, borrowing heavily whilst distracting the masses with bread and circuses (or their modern day equivalent, sporting extravangazas, fireworks and 'free' handouts to all who'll vote for them).

 

Does that remind anyone here of anywhere they know, maybe live in?

 

That's a very reactionary attitude - similar to Mitt Romney's comment about the 47% of the electorate that he had given up on, because they were only interested in handouts.

 

By the way, it's not governments providing "bread and circuses", it's corporations. Last time I checked sporting extravaganzas and entertainment spectaculars are run primarily by huge multinational companies.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lord D, I think you should watch the first episode of this year's Harry & Paul. It has a Question Time spoof which I suspect most people would find desperately unfunny, but I believe would hit quite a few of your notes. Very brave comedy, going on about the Question Time crowd - there's only so many people that'll get it.

 

That said, when minimum wage doesn't meet living costs; whaddya do?

 

Ah, the old minimum wage,sums up perfectly the con perpetrated on the poor saps who follow Labour. It was brought in for 2 reasons,makes labourites feel good about themselves and boxes the Tories into a hole. Completely and utterly useless of course,set way too low. All it does is ensure that the taxpayer subsidies your Tesco and maccy 's profits. Put it like this b &q pay someone just above minimum wage,we pick up the tab to ensure he can just about scrape by, whilst they bank millions in profit.

 

Now of course Milli and balls up call for a "living wage" , why on earth can't that be a minimum wage is beyond me. They clearly set the minimum wage up as an unliving level. Interested in the living wage being different in London, for consistency I presume they back different welfare rates for different parts of the country?

[alpine_saint]

Blimey, Alps; you've certainly changed your tune. I seem to remember getting several "Austrian grills" over being an anti-American. I'm really not; I work with loads of Americans - I love how passionate and optimistic they can be about things; they deal with both concepts in a way that we Brits cannot. I get emotion-lag every time I get back to the UK; getting used to the misery of being European again.

 

That said, for all the hype about being the greatest democracy in the world, real power in the US resides in corporate entities and landed wealth, two areas that often intersect and often take priority over all else. The Iraq War served corporate interests as well as strategic ones. No-bid contracts being handed to Cheney's former company Halliburton, the rise of the private military and of course, the oil.

 

The special relationship is a euphemistic band-aid to help us Europeans get over the fact that we've been greased so many times. America's place as a world super-power rests not in its vast resources, its cultural output or its military force. It rests on sitting back during WW2; staying neutral, selling people a sh!tload of arms, then entering on their own terms. I know people will throw Pearl Harbor out there; the Japanese might have thought they'd achieved complete surprise. I'm not so sure. Roosevelt had wanted into the war for a long time; knew what he wanted out of it and though he never lived to see it, got his wish in the end. Empires dismantled. America and the Soviet Union emerge as twin superpowers.

 

My Republican mate is one of these people who truly believes that the rest of the world owes the US something for saving Europe from the Nazis / Cold War / etc. There's no denying that, but it irks me when its suggested that the motives were entirely altruistic. Both the US and USSR derived massive benefits from their respective spheres of influence. The US especially benefited from the Western European powers losing their empires. I'm not much of an imperialist, but there's no denying that if the likes of Britain and France had somehow managed to revive the fortunes of their neglected Empires, the balance of power would be very different to what it is today.

 

I started having my doubts about the US a long time ago. But they were quiet, nagging voices. The thing that triggered it was after Saddam fell; the first thing the US did to improve infracstructure for the citizens was not restoring the electrical and water supplies, it was opening up a round of bidding about who would build the mobile phone network...

 

You are right, the world would be different today if the British Empire still existed. I am not getting dewy-eyed or nostalgic, but if the Suez crisis had not occurred, I genuinely think the world would be a safer place today. To me that even changed everything. Britain was exhausted after WW2, and totally ripped off by the US over lend-lease; so much territory lost, and money was still being repaid until December 2006, but I still think if the US had not deliberately set out to smash our world influence over Suez, we would have had a much more calming, balancing influence during the Cold War and post-Perstroika eras.

[Hamilton Saint]

I started having my doubts about the US a long time ago. But they were quiet, nagging voices. The thing that triggered it was after Saddam fell; the first thing the US did to improve infracstructure for the citizens was not restoring the electrical and water supplies, it was opening up a round of bidding about who would build the mobile phone network...

 

 

D. Cheney was Secretary of Defense for George H. Bush in 1991 during "Desert Storm" (first Gulf War). From 1995-2000 he was C.E.O. of Halliburton corporation. He went on to be the Vice-President in George W. Bush's administration - the guys who decided to invade Iraq. The post-invasion scene was run primarily by private enterprise, not government. Much of the security there was run not by the military but by private companies (Blackstone Group Security, for example).

 

Eisenhower warned the public about this sort of thing way back in the late 50s, when he identified the "military-industrial complex". Much of the key industrial activity in the US is war-related. And there is a revolving door between the government and the corporate sector.

 

None of this is new. Read Noam Chomsky, if you want to understand post-WW2 American policy,

[Dark Munster]

D. Cheney was Secretary of Defense for George H. Bush in 1991 during "Desert Storm" (first Gulf War). From 1995-2000 he was C.E.O. of Halliburton corporation. He went on to be the Vice-President in George W. Bush's administration - the guys who decided to invade Iraq. The post-invasion scene was run primarily by private enterprise, not government. Much of the security there was run not by the military but by private companies (Blackstone Group Security, for example).

 

Eisenhower warned the public about this sort of thing way back in the late 50s, when he identified the "military-industrial complex". Much of the key industrial activity in the US is war-related. And there is a revolving door between the government and the corporate sector.

 

None of this is new. Read Noam Chomsky, if you want to understand post-WW2 American policy,

Don't you mean post-WW2 Republican policy?

[Hamilton Saint]

Don't you mean post-WW2 Republican policy?

 

No - there is really no significant doctrinal difference in the way the two parties approach foreign policy. Differences in nuance and expression, perhaps. But the fundamental thrust is the same.

[Ohio Saint]

Deary me. Touched a nerve, have I ?

 

Um, no.

 

You never touch nerves. That's your problem on this forum. You say a load of stuff, but nobody really cares.

[Ohio Saint]

This whole thread is mostly useless. Sure, there was a decision made, but what changes?