Go to The Economist web site
Obama is a CLEAR global favorite, obviously. While anyone would be better than Bush, including my cat, (well, other than Palin!!) The Dragon strongly favors Obama.
But vote for who-ever you want. But lets get Oman on the map.
Well hello Mr President, do we (the rest of the world) hope that Americans will vote for change or believe that racial stereotypes will colour this election? Looking at the latest poll it would appear to be an uphill struggle for McCain. I just hope Obama will live up to a little of the hype, should he win.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's hope Colin Powell's endorsement helps too...
ReplyDeleteMy flatmate works in the McCain campaign. He said it's not looking good at all and that right now they're just trying to at least get close to Obama's poll results and hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteBut you never know. The latent racism in human beings might rear its ugly head come election day, proving the polls wrong.
-Omani in US
I am quite familiar with the US election system that has over the years been perfected to benefit "the man" or rather the mega-corporations.
ReplyDeleteAs Barack said the other day, something along the lines of: "Don't underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory."
Google/YouTube around for "diebold" and "fraud". Make sure you are sitting down when you do.
Though ultimately I believe that Barack will win. The reason is that I think a deal was struck to "sell" the White House for the Democrats' OK of the $700bln package for the mega-investors.
Always a conspiracy theory. Riddle me this: how can a system that cannot keep a secret to save its life and can fcuk up everything it tries to do be dominated by a cabal of people so slick, secretive, and capable that they are able to pull of massive conspiracies with nary a shred of evidence left behind? Oh, once they get their man in office, they screw policies up on purpose just to cover their tracks? Of course. It all makes sense now. Where are you from Boxster? I just want to understand where this theory is coming from.
ReplyDeleteBoxster,
ReplyDeleteNothing so sinister...believe it or not Bush got voted in because a huge number of Americans wanted it to be so. The bit about the Democrats snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory holds true only because their propaganda machine was so incompetent during the Bush years.
Now with the relentless Obama campaign in the picture, it's the Republicans who appear as amateurs.
-Omani in US
Is there liquidity probelm in Oman. See todays news in Times of Oman, where OCCI has called on Government to inject cash into locals banks for "financing development projects". HA! HA! "development projects", inspite of not paying any interest on saving account and giving personal loans at high interest rate, now they want government help. Why there is a sudden need for this. It seems banks are not talking the full truth.
ReplyDeleteLeo:
ReplyDelete"nary a shred of evidence"
You've obviously missed the whole scandal about the White House officials using RNC e-mail systems, or how they "accidentally" lost server-loads of e-mail backups. There goes your evidence.
The gist here and many more places, Google is your friend.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003458.php
Once the man got into the office policies were redirected to benefit the said "cabal" - see privatization of warfare by contractors and private armies; billions of Pentagon $ sent to Iraq and unaccounted for:
Story here and everywhere else:
http://www.vanityfair.com//politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710?printable=true¤tPage=all
Or the initial plan for the $700bln to nationalize the greed-driven mistakes of the mega-investors, up until the Europeans took an asset-repurchasing approach which would have made the Yanks look stupid if the move was not called.
Imagine you get a loan for a car, can't repay it, and the bank says: no problem, here's another loan for a house!
Or do you really believe that the firm that makes ATM machines with obligatory paper-trails, can not make a voting machine with the said paper-trail? Or that given the chance they wouldn't fcuk with the vote-count?
Read here:
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_0717.html
See congressional testimony here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqGzgxcfAk
I shall not tell you my origins, if only to void you of the pleasure to pigeon-hole me, as your intent appears to be.
Omani in US -
I have been following the last two sets of US presidential elections very closely, as I am following this one. I do agree with you that a significant number of people have voted for Bush, more than once. I still maintain that a substantial amount of fraud took place, if only to solidify the victory.
Unfortunately the evidence comes out years after the fact, too much too late.
Boxster,
ReplyDeleteYou pigeon-hole yourselves by falling into the fevered conspiracy theories that have been concocted by political leaders to explain their shortcomings and then projected to other parts of the world to explain undesirable outcomes as a fraud.
And I don't deny that people would try to rig elections, nor do I deny that "cabals" would try to benefit their supporters, legally or illegally. But if you think that it is within the capabilities of these shadowy forces you seem to fear to successfully pull of a "deal.. to "sell" the White House for the Democrats' OK of the $700bln package for the mega-investors" then you are a paranoiac, just as many people, both political leaders and others, would want you to be. Those who cannot think rationally and deal in paranoia play into the hands of those who would actually dupe them, while deferring the attention of the paranoiacs toward outside "evils." Mindsets like these are not probing and thoughtful, rather they buy into elaborate excuses for unsavory issues that could be explained much more rationally, although uncomfortably. The U.S. system is not as beautifully democratic as many would try to say, but at the same time "deals" to "sell" the presidency are the imaginings of a fevered mind addled by years of factual abuses. The sale of the U.S. presidency goes on right in the open with advertising and lobbying money and the arm twisting and deal-making that puts candidates in their box in the first place. The deal is made before the candidate ever wins a nomination, and from there it is a winner-take-all brawl for votes, played out with few rules, but little chance for grand conspiracy of the kind you imagine.
Leo,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that we both agree that the sale of the US presidency is an actual goings-on. We also agree that vote rigging of questionable nature is an unfortunate fact.
That only leaves the $700bln with its initial purpose of nationalizing the mistakes of the few.
The way the deal was supposed to work was basically to pay off the biggest holders of the toxic debt. Those holders also happened to be the ones who would have suffered the most under the proposed Obama tax-hikes for the rich; the same people who held the influence over mass media and lobbying groups; the owners of the arms to be twisted.
What benefit did the democrats see in rolling-over and agreeing to pay off the same people they were planning to tax? Certainly no benefit for the economy, nor the markets, nor the financial system, nor the general populus of the United States.
Is it really that hard to fathom that by effectively planning to nullify the tax-hikes for the rich, the democrats assured the support of this very influential group?
It is far from a grand conspiracy theory. It is a simple process of following-the-money-trail.
If you spent any time in DC or really analyzed any of the political decisions being made, you would agree that the above is business-as-usual for Washington.
I enjoy this blog as it is of a more intellectual nature than most in the region. I also enjoy a constructive discussion and I always look forward to hearing weighted arguments. Let us keep the discourse civil, even if we can not agree on all issues.
Boxster,
ReplyDeleteIf I "spent any time in DC or really analyzed any of the political decisions being made"... If you're going to throw this sort of lightweight "I know better than you" argument about you really should back it up. If you've spent any time in DC at all other than walking around the monuments, then let us all know what your learned.
It seems that what you learned from your internet dredging on the American political system is how to completely twist facts. This is what the current campaigns are all about. Seize on something and twist it as far as you can and leave it up to people too busy or intellectually incurious to sort it all out to correct you.
So, I did not at all agree that the sale of the presidency is an "actual goings-on." There are those would would like to buy the presidency, and there are serious monetary factors that play into the election, but as flawed as the U.S. electoral system, the presidency is not bought and sold as you insinuate.
Second, with regard to the horribly mishandled $700 billion rescue package... Your simplistic rendering of the issues belies the fact that your time in DC was in the Smithsonian gift shop (at best). The bottom line is that, yes, rich people and rich corporations benefited from the rescue. But, the best summation of the issues came from an economist whose father was a poor New York tailor during the first depression (I forget who it was but the story was in either an Economist blog or the New York Times a few weeks ago). When the stock market crashed, the guy's father said basically that it served those rich bastards right. The next year, when those rich bastards and everyone else stopped buying the tailor's shirts, he was out of business. The rescue was not simply a bailout of overextended greedy rich people (and there are a lot of those). The rescue was intended to keep our entire financial system from collapsing and especially to restore confidence required to keep the credit markets (the grease to the wheels of the economy) open. And complicit in the financial crisis were not only the rich financiers, but also congressional regulators who encouraged questionable lending practices, liberals who wanted everyone to be able to own a home, and lazy and naive people who wanted to enjoy a life they were always incapable of affording (thus Joe Six Pack is an integral part of the mess that got bailed out).
And if you are from the Middle East and want to point fingers at America for screwing up the global economy, I'd like to point you to a recent ad in the New York Times magazine from one of the Emirates (Ajman, maybe, I forget) that proudly boasted that 95% of the new developments there are owned by investors. These are speculators who have bought up places in the UAE (and Oman by the way) on credit, just like the evil greedy Americans. And just like in America, the prices have gone way past their true value. So the Americans were the first to trip up and therefore will be blamed, but everywhere I've traveled recently is awash in new construction, credit cards, and questionable economic ground.
In any case, your conspiracy theories are bollocks. In these times, anyone who tries to lay out simple explanations, especially if they are conspiratorial, or point fingers solely at one party is probably full of it.