The Next President of the USA will be?

[JimmyPage1977]

I believe that Powell thinks that world peace with Obama is much more likely, than with McCain.

There is a growing consensus that Obama's Presidency and his "World friendly", non-combative tendencies would take away Terrorist cells "reasons to hate" America and neutralize any potential of acceptance for terrorist actions. George Bush is an easy target for creation of a worldwide bully persona, Barack with those ears, would be tough!.

I understand that it's a very general view, but it is a step towards the U.S. becoming a partner in World Politics and Diplomacy..... rather than a gun-toting "maverick".

I don't always agree with the Republicans...

Edited October 19, 2008 by JimmyPage1977

[Pb Derigable]

In a few places, i heard McCain was holding back on Wright because he knew any question about a black man pastor would drive a fellow black man away in Powell case. You also have to note Powell is running out of money and a job in the McCain adm. is not going to happen. Where Obama can appoint a republican and be considered bipartisan.

I would agree World peace would have a greater chance under the Obama Adm. than McCain. but of course countries like China, Iran, Syria and Russia will have greater power on the world market because in the end, if your not going to kill the bad people, you most likely going to have to pay them off. Good by American Jobs. Iran will stop making Nukes, and Obama will negotiate, and after wards, Iran will get Nuclear power, but they will also get unrestricted trade into and out of the U.S., which in turn will supply them with more money in which they will find another reason to hate us, just with more money.

But really folks, its already known Pelosi and Reid already have bills written up that will get pass that has nothing to do with any issues that is relevant now.

But in the end, we will be more like china than anything, and thats a good thing because nobody wants to attack china.

[Medhb]

I believe that Powell thinks that world peace with Obama is much more likely, than with McCain.

There is a growing consensus that Obama's Presidency and his "World friendly", non-combative tendencies would take away Terrorist cells "reasons to hate" America and neutralize any potential of acceptance for terrorist actions. George Bush is an easy target for creation of a worldwide bully persona, Barack with those ears, would be tough!.

I understand that it's a very general view, but it is a step towards the U.S. becoming a partner in World Politics and Diplomacy..... rather than a gun-toting "maverick".

I don't always agree with the Republicans...

Ahhh, so nice to find some common ground!

[wanna be drummer]

Just cast my vote!

Ok, so it's not the most scientific of polls, still, it is interesting in terms of global opinion. That they bother to vote shows to whatever extent an awareness of and concern for the international ramifications of this election. Check out Iran's results so far. But what's with Macedonia?

If the World Could Vote

This was terribly flawed. It showed the United States as 81% Obama which is hardly the case. It just shows who's visiting that website

Besides, why does this matter anyhow?

[Medhb]

This was terribly flawed. It showed the United States as 81% Obama which is hardly the case. It just shows who's visiting that website

Besides, why does this matter anyhow?

Why does it matter who gets into power in Middle Eastern countries? The US always seems to be very preocuppied with who's in power all over the world. Why shouldn't the world have an opinion on who they'd rather see in power in the US?

Only difference is...when we don't like the way it's going in another country...we sink money and weapons into getting our candidate of the moment into power.

Gee, come to think of it...perhaps it's done here also. At least that would explain how a boob like GWB could be the leader of the free world for 8 years.

[Patrycja]

This was terribly flawed. It showed the United States as 81% Obama which is hardly the case. It just shows who's visiting that website

Besides, why does this matter anyhow?

Well I said it's not the most scientific of polls. It shows 81% in the US of the people who visited the site and placed their vote, so for the purposes of the site. You can't make sweeping generalizations about who visits the site based on the results. It's who these people want to win. That's it. It matters for the reasons Medhb so well explained. You may have felt a little differently about the relevance of voicing said opinion had you been from one of these other countries.

[wanna be drummer]

Well I said it's not the most scientific of polls. It shows 81% in the US of the people who visited the site and placed their vote, so for the purposes of the site. You can't make sweeping generalizations about who visits the site based on the results. It's who these people want to win. That's it. It matters for the reasons Medhb so well explained. You may have felt a little differently about the relevance of voicing said opinion had you been from one of these other countries.

And you can't make sweeping generalizations about how the world would vote based on such a crude, very unreliable source.

That's all I'm saying/

[wanna be drummer]

Why does it matter who gets into power in Middle Eastern countries? The US always seems to be very preocuppied with who's in power all over the world. Why shouldn't the world have an opinion on who they'd rather see in power in the US?

The world can have an opinion, but no one should vote based on what others think.

Only difference is...when we don't like the way it's going in another country...we sink money and weapons into getting our candidate of the moment into power.

Agreed

Gee, come to think of it...perhaps it's done here also. At least that would explain how a boob like GWB could be the leader of the free world for 8 years.

Least it wasn't Kerry or Gore

[Patrycja]

And you can't make sweeping generalizations about how the world would vote based on such a crude, very unreliable source.

That's all I'm saying/

I am making no such statement. I merely posted a site, which gives people a chance to make a vote. It's far from accurate, but not entirely irrelevant. That's it. And I stated that said site isn't a scientific poll, so in essence I already said what you're saying. So why be redundant? Is it really worth all this ping pong? Geezalou...

[I have got a horsey]

Least it wasn't Kerry or Gore

No, it certainly wasn't. So much better to give history's most laughable president another term in office Way to go America

[Electrophile]

And you can't make sweeping generalizations about how the world would vote based on such a crude, very unreliable source.

That's all I'm saying/

She wasn't saying the site was on par with Gallup or Rasmussen, for cryin' out loud.

[Pb Derigable]

Least it wasn't Kerry or Gore

I really wonder, could of Gore Presidency been different. Would of Kerry be different.

9/11 would of happen under Gore, but you can make the point he may of not invaded Iraq, you can also make the point that the U.S.A. wouldn't heal so quickly after 9/11 if he was POTUS. (Bush was the main reason why a depression didn't hit afterward, robot gore would've sat still) Gore may of not went after Al Queda the way Bush did. I personally think he won;t send more than a few ground troops and some missile into Afghanistan.

If Kerry won, we will still be in the economic crisis we are in now. Even he wouldn't allow the retooling of Fannie and Freddie. We may be better off now with him, but the crisis would've hit sooner and Quicker (Bush policy prevented this for as long as possible, but it was destined to fail) It is clearly evident that neither Dems or Repubs know how to fix this, so it is very unlikely Kerry would of done anything different. Iraq would be far off in a worse shape than it is now or ever was. He may of focus on Afghanistan more, but Al queda would've moved into Iraq, like they already did by then. The failure of Katrina would also happen. It was faults at the state level that set that headache into motion.

So this is why i came to this conclusion, from 9/11 on, the role of the current president was changed to protectionism. You can't disregard the fact we haven't been hit since. Knowing Gore would've been lite on AL Queda and Kerry would still have a financial crisis on hand and would never seen Iraq like it is now. Iran will still be making the bomb too.

The events of the last 8 years most doubtfully will sacrifice any presidency. Gore would not of went into Iraq and most likely did nothing on the terror front and Kerry will be facing a full blown recession in his presidency.

But if we get the right guy to see Iraq to a righteous end and redo the way government works and putting our economy into the 21st century, the events of the last 8 years would lead to greater things.

The question is, do we quit Iraq and hand out more welfare to end the mistakes of the last 8 years or do we learn and fix what caused these mistakes to happen

[Lake of Shadows]

That's, frankly, an incredible endorsement.

But I always had a feeling that Powell, in the end, either felt embarrassment or unease about his involvement in the Bush Administration and decided to get out of there.

I definitely got that impression. Hell, he got up in front of the UN and did that powerpoint thingamy to make the case for war... and it turned out to be bullshit. It seemed to me that he either signed onto the BS wagon, in which case I'd lose a lot of respect for him, or he got sandbagged, and he stayed despite that, for whatever reason. Over the next few months it seemed like he was being kept out of the loop, and his advice/viewpoint was ignored. Either way, it dented his credibility quite a bit. In a lot of ways, I'm almost surprised he stayed as long as he did. I remember a couple of interviews he did a year or two after the war started... and I got the impression that he was presenting the official viewpoint as duly required of the Sec. of State while personally disagreeing with what he was supposed to say. That sounds like a very uncomfortable spot to be in.

Anyway, yay for Colin Powell!

[Patrycja]

She wasn't saying the site was on par with Gallup or Rasmussen, for cryin' out loud.

aaah, a voice of reason displaying not so common common sense...tip o' the hat to you

[Patrycja]

I definitely got that impression. Hell, he got up in front of the UN and did that powerpoint thingamy to make the case for war... and it turned out to be bullshit. It seemed to me that he either signed onto the BS wagon, in which case I'd lose a lot of respect for him, or he got sandbagged, and he stayed despite that, for whatever reason. Over the next few months it seemed like he was being kept out of the loop, and his advice/viewpoint was ignored. Either way, it dented his credibility quite a bit. In a lot of ways, I'm almost surprised he stayed as long as he did. I remember a couple of interviews he did a year or two after the war started... and I got the impression that he was presenting the official viewpoint as duly required of the Sec. of State while personally disagreeing with what he was supposed to say. That sounds like a very uncomfortable spot to be in.

Anyway, yay for Colin Powell!

I like to think it was this, and he was then in an almost impossible situation: step down, or take the hit to your personal and professional integrity for the sake of duty. It seems he stayed on to try and help not so much to tow the party line (though he clearly understands the politics of either decision) but to perform his given duty as best he could, so that he wouldn't leave others with their asses in the wind like he was, further deepening the problem. Now that he is free of the boundaries that come with being Secretary of State, he can speak unfettered, and he clearly articulated a very thorough case for BO.

It reminded me of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (former US National Security Adviser, impressively articulate and intelligent) I saw recently on BBC. Early on he was one of BO's advisers, but decided to step down from that position in an official capacity because he wanted to be able to speak freely, should he and BO disagree, and that is inevitable.

Here's the interview:

Brzezinski on BBC's HARDtalk

[Electrophile]

Wanna hear something funny? Rush Limbaugh (that fat, drug-addled lunatic) called Colin Powell a racist. Oh wait, not just any racist. An ungrateful racist. Because someone who is a 4-star General, has served the United States both as a soldier and a civilian and took his lumps from the press and the public for defending the Iraq war.....is ungrateful. That's the ticket.

I hope he tries to deep-throat the mic because he thinks it's a hot dog.

[Lake of Shadows]

I hope he tries to deep-throat the mic because he thinks it's a hot dog.

Sig-worthy

Edited October 20, 2008 by Lake of Shadows

[wanna be drummer]

No, it certainly wasn't. So much better to give history's most laughable president another term in office Way to go America

Fortunately. the world will never know

[SunChild]

Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber, hasn't paid his taxes and is related to Charles Keating. Of the Keating 5. That McCain was a part of.

Stop deifying this man, please.

Thank you.

Hey, I love your cherries!

(Wait, that doesn't sound quite right...)

In a few places, i heard McCain was holding back on Wright because he knew any question about a black man pastor would drive a fellow black man away in Powell case. You also have to note Powell is running out of money and a job in the McCain adm. is not going to happen. Where Obama can appoint a republican and be considered bipartisan.

I would agree World peace would have a greater chance under the Obama Adm. than McCain. but of course countries like China, Iran, Syria and Russia will have greater power on the world market because in the end, if your not going to kill the bad people, you most likely going to have to pay them off. Good by American Jobs. Iran will stop making Nukes, and Obama will negotiate, and after wards, Iran will get Nuclear power, but they will also get unrestricted trade into and out of the U.S., which in turn will supply them with more money in which they will find another reason to hate us, just with more money.

But really folks, its already known Pelosi and Reid already have bills written up that will get pass that has nothing to do with any issues that is relevant now.

But in the end, we will be more like china than anything, and thats a good thing because nobody wants to attack china.

God forbid we should find some other way of being in the world than killing people, huh?

[SunChild]

Wanna hear something funny? Rush Limbaugh (that fat, drug-addled lunatic) called Colin Powell a racist. Oh wait, not just any racist. An ungrateful racist. Because someone who is a 4-star General, has served the United States both as a soldier and a civilian and took his lumps from the press and the public for defending the Iraq war.....is ungrateful. That's the ticket.

I hope he tries to deep-throat the mic because he thinks it's a hot dog.

I'd help him with that.

Hmmm... apparently he thinks the darkies are getting too uppity, huh? I mean, these guys will never admit that for 233 years white men have been supporting white men without blinking an eye... but let a black man support a black man after considered analysis and with good reason, and they're upset.

It seems the wing nuts are really loosing it, now. Hallaleujah!

[I have got a horsey]

in the end, if your not going to kill the bad people, you most likely going to have to pay them off.

Killing is still killing my friend, there's no honourableness about it, and reducing things to simplistic dualities of good and bad guys is ridiculous. It shows a lack of ability to be able to comprehend anything but your own perceived righteousness.

Killing your enemies is one thing.

But going around killing 'bad guys' gets a little murkey if you have to explain why they're bad and you're good.

Honesty is the best policy in this situation.

We're all aware of the practicalities and necessities of our survival, but I think we're old enough to do away with the warm ego blanket of 'good' and 'bad'.

[Patrycja]

I know that Colin Powell said he wasn't looking for a cabinet position regardless of who wins, but if Obama wins, I'd like to see Powell as Secretary of Defense, if anything. I think a 4-star general would do well in that role, might help to cut out some of the cheese.

Nothing's set in stone, but it wouldn't surprise me if Powell changed his mind. BO certainly hopes that he becomes an adviser, whether in an official capacity or something more loosely structured. Even if it's the latter, like with Brzezinski, it would definitely be a big boost.

Powell Has Role in Obama White House

[Patrycja]

actually never mind...

Edited October 20, 2008 by Patrycja

[Mary Hartman]

I've been in in the hospital very very sick. I am happy to be back and see the board.

[cryingbluerain]

I know that Colin Powell said he wasn't looking for a cabinet position regardless of who wins, but if Obama wins, I'd like to see Powell as Secretary of Defense, if anything. I think a 4-star general would do well in that role, might help to cut out some of the cheese.

LMAO. Sure, "Uncle Tom" Powell (as he used to be referred to by the lefties) is now welcome into a BO admin with open arms.