Who will be the next President of the United States?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

but this election is about who will become probably the most powerful individual in the world.

Really...?:hmm:

[August]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Normally I would agree with you....but this election is about who will become probably the most powerful individual in the world.

But only from 4 to 8 years...

[Jimbuna]

Can't think of anyone else who will have more influence on our planet :hmm:

(but I think I'm gonna hear a few names soon)

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Really...?:hmm:

I don't know why one has to ponder that assesment. The President of the USA is after all the commander in chief of the biggest and most advanced military force this world has ever seen. Being in command of that force has by definition got to make that office bearer the 'most powerful individual in the world'.

[Von Tonner]

Russia buzzes a US carrier and spends billions in cranking up her aging military force, China gets caught in espionage against the States - McCain must be loving this. The more the US electorate gets nervous the more his chance of winning the White House grows.

[August]

And then we find out about this:

Obama campaign office:



http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...N-US&layoutCod

Note the disclaimer which was recently added...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

I don't know why one has to ponder that assesment. The President of the USA is after all the commander in chief of the biggest and most advanced military force this world has ever seen. Being in command of that force has by definition got to make that office bearer the 'most powerful individual in the world'.

The president of the US is embebdded in a tight network of obligations, legal demands, mechanisms, dependencies on lobbies, interests and established networks and groups, as well as domestic prsssure, media pressure, needs to fulfill nterests and demands of his party, his or his party's voters, the intriocacies of future elections, prmmises being made to subgroups and interest groups before he was elected, needs deriving from keeping the economy running (more or less) etc etc etc. no president has the power to just sit and command, and everyone goes marching. Just look the massive campaigns and mass manipulation that were needed to gain GWB the support until he could dare to declare war on Iraq - it may have been planned ten years in advance, but the execution of that decision needed months and months of global manipulation in order to get much of the factors I mentione dbaove being supportive to his wish to attack Iraq.

It is all not so easy as if I would say "most powerful individual in the world". there are as many dependencies - if not more - a president is entangled in, as there are freedoms to make decisions and use America'S ressources at will.

And nthere is more in "power" than just military. Look at china, and what is called "soft power". They currently cannot match the american military on a global stage - but still they outmaneuver America, and take over the global influence that america had at the climax of it's power. Economic and financial power is far more important than just military power - as can be seen in the history of european nations of the past 500 years. So many great military powers had to give up, for the economy collapsed and their finance system broke down. Napoleon'S France should have truly become the leading superpower in Europe, for long times to come. He ailed: the military inferior small island of Britain proved to have then longer breath: for reasons of greater financial resposurces, and a more modern tax and banking system securing these. The powerful and for long time even superior Wehrmacht became vulnerable when it no longer could guarantee and secure free access to ressources needed for the war and the war production in German factories. Spain, Hungary/Austria both fell due to their economies and currencies collapsing under the might of military spendings. - Reminds this of some current actor, maybe? So, power is much more than just military capacity. Only tunnel-viewed unawareness of historic precedences could lead to that assumption of firepower deciding it alone. In general, America seem to overestimate this dinosaur it is investing so many of it's more and more precious and spare ressources into - even ressources it does not have, and needs to lend from others. It does not need a rocket scientist that this trend sooner or later must hit a wall, for it vannot go forever. Only question is if you are prepared at the time of the event, or not. Currently, the answer is a total No.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Russia buzzes a US carrier and spends billions in cranking up her aging military force, China gets caught in espionage against the States - McCain must be loving this. The more the US electorate gets nervous the more his chance of winning the White House grows.

russias and china's military spendings and activities are a boring breeze compared to american spendings and actions in these sectors. How many times is the american budget greater than that of Russia and China together? Bush wants 480 billion for 2008. China had 34 billion in 2007, germany had 28 billion, russia had 32 billion. With 420 billion in 2005 the American budget was greater than that of the next 160+ spending states together.

[dean_acheson]

Today's obligatory 'Obama's a mix between a rock star and Bobby Kennedy' story:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...269063,00.html

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The president of the US is embebdded in a tight network of obligations, legal demands, mechanisms, dependencies on lobbies, interests and established networks and groups, as well as domestic prsssure, media pressure, needs to fulfill nterests and demands of his party, his or his party's voters, the intriocacies of future elections, prmmises being made to subgroups and interest groups before he was elected, needs deriving from keeping the economy running (more or less) etc etc etc. no president has the power to just sit and command, and everyone goes marching. Just look the massive campaigns and mass manipulation that were needed to gain GWB the support until he could dare to declare war on Iraq - it may have been planned ten years in advance, but the execution of that decision needed months and months of global manipulation in order to get much of the factors I mentione dbaove being supportive to his wish to attack Iraq.

It is all not so easy as if I would say "most powerful individual in the world". there are as many dependencies - if not more - a president is entangled in, as there are freedoms to make decisions and use America'S ressources at will.

And nthere is more in "power" than just military. Look at china, and what is called "soft power". They currently cannot match the american military on a global stage - but still they outmaneuver America, and take over the global influence that america had at the climax of it's power. Economic and financial power is far more important than just military power - as can be seen in the history of european nations of the past 500 years. So many great military powers had to give up, for the economy collapsed and their finance system broke down. Napoleon'S France should have truly become the leading superpower in Europe, for long times to come. He ailed: the military inferior small island of Britain proved to have then longer breath: for reasons of greater financial resposurces, and a more modern tax and banking system securing these. The powerful and for long time even superior Wehrmacht became vulnerable when it no longer could guarantee and secure free access to ressources needed for the war and the war production in German factories. Spain, Hungary/Austria both fell due to their economies and currencies collapsing under the might of military spendings. - Reminds this of some current actor, maybe? So, power is much more than just military capacity. Only tunnel-viewed unawareness of historic precedences could lead to that assumption of firepower deciding it alone. In general, America seem to overestimate this dinosaur it is investing so many of it's more and more precious and spare ressources into - even ressources it does not have, and needs to lend from others. It does not need a rocket scientist that this trend sooner or later must hit a wall, for it vannot go forever. Only question is if you are prepared at the time of the event, or not. Currently, the answer is a total No.

Skybird, the phrase 'commander in chief' places any debate in a military contex and not economical. But let us go along with your definition. There is no country in the world that can threaten the USA in whatever way where the 'commander in chief' irespective of ALL the other domestic factors cannot respond immediately. For example, do you honestly believe that if all oil producing states tomorow decided to stop supplying the US with oil you do not think that whoever sat in the White House does not have the means to correct that misguided judgement. No other country in the world has that luxury - not Germany, the Uk, China etc etc. Therefore, without labouring the point, the president of the US is without doubt the most powerful individual in the world.

[TteFAboB]

Obama is the favourite candidate of anti-american foreign journalists, columnists and the like. One point for Hillary then.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Skybird

russias and china's military spendings and activities are a boring breeze compared to american spendings and actions in these sectors. How many times is the american budget greater than that of Russia and China together? Bush wants 480 billion for 2008. China had 34 billion in 2007, germany had 28 billion, russia had 32 billion. With 420 billion in 2005 the American budget was greater than that of the next 160+ spending states together.

You are missing the point again. I'm not talking economics, hell it could be a banana republic whose tin pot dictator found a nuke under his bed and woke up in the morning threatning the US with it. ANY military threat, build up, display, arrogance - you name it, from any country deemed hostile to the US has got to work in McCains favour. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much a country spends on its military. I mentioned Russia's military spend within the CONTEXT of its public posture to the US.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Obama is the favourite candidate of anti-american foreign journalists, columnists and the like. One point for Hillary then.

[Skybird]

You talked of the "most powerful individual in the world". thus my response.

As CINC, the president may be a powrful figure indeed. But still, be careful to call him the most powerful individual just becasue of thos circumstance. You overestimate the importance of military power. Fact is that the Us is more depending of foreign nations and interests than it could be pleased with to admit. since a while now there are first signs that the dollar will never be the important leading currency that is once was. OPEC openly speculates about abandoning it. china wants to avoid loosing billions from sticking to dollar reserves, and if it starts for real to transofrm it's reserves into Euros, there is nothing you can do abiut that but suffer the smashing consequecnes to your finacial system and economy. Your military helps you nothing in that. I honestly doubt that the US miulitary is able anymore to wage and win a major war within the Chinese sphere of influence anymore. the war in ieraq has not and will not been ended with a clear military victory. nor the war in Afghanistan. that should put your entzhusiams of military power into relation a bit. Fact is that there is a monumental debts level, and stellar budget defiict, major poarts of the Us economy having go0ne or are going offworld and folliwng the cheaper labour elsewhere, and steel industry beinh heavily overaged, the car industry as well, and the US due to the war production it lived by since end of WWII and never switched back to civilian standards being dependent on oumping more and more money into that defense sector, if no0fr no toher reason than to keep at least that part of the industry alive and healthy. This causes nevertheless massive hurtings to american overall budget. And all this whuile being heavily dependant on the good will of foreign nations to keep on transfering immense volumes of money into the finacial market of the Us where the money often just dissapears. But some gulf states, china, several european poltiicians have shown more and mor willingness to allow this going on forever. The corrent stockmarket crisis, which is far from being over: you better believe that, and the triggering mortage crisis did not really helpt to make this trend going reverse. the ameircan economy design is no longer capable to live all by it'S own effort and fiannce the state and the military all by it's own effort - and this dependency simply leaves the Us more vulnerable than prpoud americans thinking just in terms of who has the bigger battleship are likely to admit. Again, China is outmaneuvering the Us right now - and it even does not need it's military for that. If the american CINC is so powerful and military is all that counts - I wonder why this could be, then.

But these issues have been discussed repeatedly, and with no result. So people have to wait and see who was right in the late months of 2007, and early months of 2008.

For example, do you honestly believe that if all oil producing states tomorow decided to stop supplying the US with oil you do not think that whoever sat in the White House does not have the means to correct that misguided judgement.

Misguided judgement? Get back to your senses. Essentially you say this: their oil is all yours, and thinking different from the US being the navel of the earth is just a mental disease that you will cure with your big stick. that's exactly the kind of arrogant attitude that earns america so much sympathy all over the globe. And btw, if oil deals turn to be done in euros not dollars, this alone would deloiver the american economy and the finances a very massive blow. It means that you have no longer a concession to print money as you like, need and feel fit.

[geetrue]

Haven't you noticed that they sell commercial's on just about all of those news stations we watch, except PBS maybe.

Sponcers pay the bills ... generate news, any news and the money flows in.

When there is no news people move on ...

Believe half of what you hear, part of what you see, means welcome to maturity.

P.S. Did you hear why the democratic and republican conventions are so late in the year? (end of August and beginning of September)

Due to Federal matching funds for the men and women running for office, that's why ...