I have to wonder if the whole world isn't laughing at us

[Albion]

Me too. There is a theory that choosing Palin was deliberate move to throw the election without appearing to.

And whose theory might that be?

I've heard a lot of really goofy historical theories, but this one seems like a contender for the Top Ten list.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess that's supposed to be funny, right?

No, it is how i formed my judgement of her, i watched her and listened.

 

[tickingclocker]

Hillary polls pretty well among most of the rest of the world. The reason the rest of the world is laughing at the USA is because of Soggy Cheetoh over there.

I was just thinking yesterday of the humiliating reputation we have been given throughout the world as "the ugly American" -- rude, clueless, bombastic, insulting of other cultures, assumes ours should be the norm everywhere, and thinks America is the only country which is/should be "great". Which candidate fits that description more?

You are are correct in that regard, that Clinton is more acceptable throughout the world's governments than Trump. They can recognize a politician when they see one. Trump, given his international fumbling, is the ultimate "ugly American". Clinton is not far behind, but Trump is clearly in the lead when it comes to "buffoonery".

 

[tickingclocker]

I'm afraid they do...
It's no democracy, so the people are hardly to blame though.

The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

 

[tickingclocker]

It was President Obama that was being disrespected, and in essence, this entire nation was made a laughing stock, for the world to see.

It was painful to watch.

You don't just disrespect a person. You invariably disrespect what the person represents and the office they hold. A lame duck president is always received coolly, especially when election of a new one is less than 60 days away. When other countries have had the caliber of lesser candidates for election come up, they received the same eye-rolling responses from other countries. Take Canada's recent election, for instance. How many eye-rolls occurred when PM Harper went out and lightweight Trudeau moved in? Ever look into Mexico's politics (beyond NAFTA)? The current one, Nieto, "enjoys" a mere 12% popularity in his own country. Would he receive a few eye-rolls right now if he were to travel to other countries? Absolutely. Politics is basically an admiration society. Typically of themselves.

Really says something about us as a nation, that we would allow either present candidate to even run for the highest office in the nation. Might as well run Bozo the Clown and Captain Kangaroo against each other.

 

[The Cadet]

But it was the previous idea by another poster that I disagreed with. The notion that if Trump is featured all the time in the news--but put in an unfavorable light because of it--amounts to "advertising" for him isn't correct to say.

This is still not true. Please stop repeating statements that are demonstrably false. Trump's coverage by the media in the primaries was only 43% negative. This places him below Cruz and Clinton, the latter of which had 84% negative coverage.

 

[bhsmte]

This is still not true. Please stop repeating statements that are demonstrably false. Trump's coverage by the media in the primaries was only 43% negative. This places him below Cruz and Clinton, the latter of which had 84% negative coverage.

Why do you think the mainstream media would prop up trump so much? What is your source for these percentages?

 

[The Cadet]

Why do you think the mainstream media would prop up trump so much? What is your source for these percentages?

Last page: http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

And it's not that they propped him up. It's just that their coverage wasn't explicitly negative. They covered him neutrally, as if he was just any other candidate, as if what he was saying was just any other campaign statement. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a problem.

 

[Hieronymus]

The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

They claim to be a democratic republic though, don't they?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I don't normally participate in the political forum, but I see nearly all of the "most replies today" are from this area. I popped in and glanced at a few threads.

Does it ever occur to any of you that the whole world may be laughing at us? Do you ever look to past Presidents, and wonder how it came to be that Trump and Hillary are the two main choices? Does anyone out there see this as an almost impossibly ridiculous situation?

I'm asking myself how this happened, and why ...

It's an American's issue obviously.
Maybe we've been dumbed down so effectively by television programing,government public school curriculum over the last few decades, while saturated with artificial chemicals that affect our mind, body, and of course emotions and health, that our "programmers", what some call, "masters", figure Trump and Hillary are what we deserve.

We're being shown in this election that what people have said about elections for years really is true. We're voting for the lesser of two evils. Only in this election those evils are astonishingly corrupt and unfit. Almost like a cartoon character for each party is being held up as one to choose.

And as predicted, partisan bias has some American's rabidly defending their evil of choice. Not because they're fit human beings for the job. But because that particular evil is running as a Republican. Or, as a Democrat. And that's what matters!
Party! Before country! Party before worthiness to run the nation. PARTY!

Probably the world is laughing at us. But who cares? When the top 1% is laughing at how they've arranged this coming Novembers ballot.

We've got two people folks I know wouldn't trust to babysit asking to run the most powerful nation on earth for four years.
They're the best we can do because we've proven we don't expect better for ourselves.

 

[tickingclocker]

They claim to be a democratic republic though, don't they?

They know not what they say.

 

[Albion]

I was just thinking yesterday of the humiliating reputation we have been given throughout the world as "the ugly American" -- rude, clueless, bombastic, insulting of other cultures, assumes ours should be the norm everywhere, and thinks America is the only country which is/should be "great". Which candidate fits that description more?

Obama is the one who came immediately to my mind. As for the two persons who are currently seeking the office, I really expect that either one would or will do a better job than we've gotten from the current occupant of the White House, so that would be good, wouldn't it?

 

[Picky Picky]

I think the rest of the world has probably stopped laughing. It's getting too close to the cut-off. I think the rest of the world is crossing its fingers and hoping against hope that the US is not daft enough to go for Mussolini-lite. Because if the US does go that way, it's not just the US will face the consequences.

 

[The Cadet]

Obama is the one who came immediately to my mind.

Y'wanna go into why? Why you think Obama best exemplifies the common American stereotypes? This statement is just beyond bizarre to me, not least of which given the constant right-wing rhetoric about him being unamerican, about him going on an "apology tour", and the like.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I think the rest of the world has probably stopped laughing. It's getting too close to the cut-off. I think the rest of the world is crossing its fingers and hoping against hope that the US is not daft enough to go for Mussolini-lite. Because if the US does go that way, it's not just the US will face the consequences.

Knowing nothing about Mussolini is bad enough but thinking any American candidate qualifies for the slur is pathetic.

Voting for a candidate that thinks the laws of any government office aren't applicable to her, while she's all about gaining more money and power and will continue to sell out America to the highest bidder if she is allowed to assume the highest office is tantamount to soft treason.

 

[Picky Picky]

Knowing nothing about Mussolini is bad enough but thinking any American candidate qualifies for the slur is pathetic.

Voting for a candidate that thinks the laws of any government office aren't applicable to her, while she's all about gaining more money and power and will continue to sell out America to the highest bidder if she is allowed to assume the highest office is tantamount to soft treason.

Your second paragraph does not tally with the truth.

If the first clause of your first paragraph is intended to imply that I know nothing about BM, you are mistaken. My fear is that the American electorate may not see that the second clause is horribly wrong.

 

[Albion]

If the first clause of your first paragraph is intended to imply that I know nothing about BM, you are mistaken.

Agreed. When I read your previous post, I thought that you were knee-deep in it.

 

[Picky Picky]

Agreed. When I read your previous post, I thought that you were knee-deep in it.

Opaque, I fear. I'll take it as a compliment, shall I?

 

[bhsmte]

Last page: http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

And it's not that they propped him up. It's just that their coverage wasn't explicitly negative. They covered him neutrally, as if he was just any other candidate, as if what he was saying was just any other campaign statement. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a problem.

Well, i tend to think the main stream media leans left, which is why this surprises me. In fact, early on, fox was probably giving trump the roughest ride of anyone.

 

[tickingclocker]

Obama is the one who came immediately to my mind. As for the two persons who are currently seeking the office, I really expect that either one would or will do a better job than we've gotten from the current occupant of the White House, so that would be good, wouldn't it?

While Obama has made some mistakes, I don't think either one will be any better than he was.

I vote for compassion. Neither has it for anyone but themselves. Both are so highly self-protective of themselves, its equally frightening.