2
   

The great politician trust charts - you get to rank them!

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 12:07 am
I now think even more that MarionT hasn't understood.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 02:57 am
MarionT wrote:
That's not what I wrote. At least not all of it. Go back to read the rest of it. It said--Yes, I have understood it only too well. Who gives a damn if Nimh wants to play parlor games so he can show how good he is at Trivial Pursuit? Who cares about Turkenmenbashie and Ju Hintao? Why doesn't Nimh go to play with his EU neighbors? When the US and the Soviets were pointing missles at each other in the early sixties, none of the tinpot dictators meant a thing. Nimh trivializes the crisis we face by playing such games. Maybe that is his aim.


So what do you propose? Or better said, suppose we all agree with you and decide right this instant to do nothing else but post about the (in)sanity of Bush and the danger he represents to the world.
Apart from probably devoiding the forum of readers who like it for its diversity, what is this going to achieve? Exactly?
Many here agree that Bush is a dangerous individual (to put it politely) So they don't need convincing. There are people out there who defend his policies with a fervor. Suppose you could convince them that Bush is a problem, then what?
What do you intend to DO about it? Launch a worldwide revolt? Call everyone to arms and march against Bushmerica?
I have seen so many threads deal with Bush's sanity and dangerous ideas that I am weary of the topic matter. Fine. I agree. Let's hope the US civilians choose wisely coming election.

And stating that 'none of the tinpot dictators mean a thing' is dangerous at least. It might surprise you that come early 1900 most of the Western Civilization thought that England was the most powerful nation in the world, closely followed by the big players on the European mainland. the USA was also featured in this list, but Japan wasn't.
The Russians went to war with them in 1904, to dispute imperialistic claims made by Japan on the mainland of Asia. It came as a complete surprise to the European nations that Russia lost...

My point being, that the 'crackpot dictator' of today could be the respected leader of a powerful country tomorrow. Shutting your eyes for global politics because you are convinced that national problems are bigger MAY have results in the short term, but it will certainly be detrimental in the long run.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 03:01 am
MarionT wrote:
Who gives a damn if Nimh wants to play parlor games so he can show how good he is at Trivial Pursuit?

Judging by the number of posts people spend commenting on nimh's motives -- nobody except you.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 03:46 am
MarionT wrote:
Who cares about Turkenmenbashi and Hu Jintao?

1,3 billion Chinese do, for one - thats more people than live in the US and Europe combined. Not to mention the rapidly expanding economical and political influence of China in Africa and its looming force of numbers in Asia.

MarionT wrote:
When the USA and the Soviets were pointing their missles at each other in the early sixties, none of the tinpot dictators meant a thing.

Try telling that to anyone who lived under Pinochet - there's a few here on the board who were there or had close friends living there.

MarionT wrote:
Why doesn't Nihm go play with his EU neighbors?

Why dont you go play on an Americans-only thread, if you are so disgusted with anyone discussing the politics of any other country?

God, you think you're some kind of subversive champion of political rebellion against the Bushies, but in your own inverse way you're a bigger American chauvinist than many of the American conservatives on this board.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 03:58 am
ossobuco wrote:
Based on some views I'll have to look harder at Zapatero.

I'm a big fan of his. He campaigned on getting Spain out of the Iraq war, and as soon as he got into power, he did so. He has energetically pursued one courageous political move after another, and yet remained popular.

He implemented a decentralisation policy which afforded Catalonia significant autonomy, in the face of the dogma of Castillian centralism. He's enacted a far-going amnesty for illegals that brought with it the contriversial recognition that Spain has now itself become a country of immigration, and will have to embrace the reality of a multicultural society. He's been reliably progressive in economic policy. And one of the things I like best about him is that, although little immediate electoral rewards could be foreseen and the topic was still largely taboo, one of the first problems he tackled when elected was domestic violence, more broadly coupled with womens rights. Again confronting the entrenched and politically powerful Catholic Church, he also had Spain become only the third country in the world to enact gay marriage.

All of it - both the subjects he tackled and the forthrightness he tackled it with, has given me the impression of a sincere, driven man who sets his priorities based on what he thinks is right rather than on the immediate polls, and plays his cards openly.

ossobuco wrote:
Given those categories, I probably screwed up since I know some less well than others.

Why do you think you screwed up? There's a tension in the two questions I asked in my first post - who do you trust to tell the truth, who do you trust not to f*ck you over - they may not need always overlap, as outlined in posts above. But all anyone can do is just navigate around such paradoxes and draw up the list of whom you trust the best you can. I think thats all anyone here has done.

(Sorry if I sound in any way short, I dont mean to - I should quit responding to MarionT, makes me edgy.)

ossobuco wrote:
Merkel, for example, is an apparent stable sort to me, but I dunno.

I'd agree. Thats why I put her above Chirac, for example, though I agree more often with Chirac, politically.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 03:59 am
SierraSong wrote:
Relieved to see a couple of people put Turkmenbashi at or near the bottom of their 'lists'. Couldn't figure out for a bit why he was even included, but it eventually came to me.

Hey Sierra, I'm curious about what your list would be like too! You didnt post one yet, right?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 04:21 am
Oh, and hear hear, Naj.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 05:20 am
nimh wrote:
Oh, and hear hear, Naj.


Do you two, btw, know that we lost against Holland again?

0:5 ... at the World Champion for the Intellectually Disabled, semi-finals.

But Holland lost the final versus Saudi-Arabia.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:14 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
nimh wrote:
Oh, and hear hear, Naj.


Do you two, btw, know that we lost against Holland again?

0:5 ... at the World Champion for the Intellectually Disabled, semi-finals.

But Holland lost the final versus Saudi-Arabia.


I honestly don't know what to do with that information. Is it a good thing we won against Germany? Or a bad thing? Of ocurse, winning against Germany is in itself a very good thing, no doubt about that, but we do that soooo often it doesn't really surprise me anymore. Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 07:29 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 08:05 am
What did I learn here? That you really can't discuss serious matters with Dutch.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 08:07 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What did I learn: you can't discuss serious matters with Dutch.


Coming from the German who posted about sports in a thread about world politics, that statement lacks... seriousness? Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 08:08 am
:wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 07:01 pm
Well, throwing all the numbers in the list, ladies & gentlemen, this then, so far, is

the A2K Top 20 Trust Charts!

I've added an empty line whereever there was a point or more separating two of them.

Total participants so far: 15.

Note that until now, it's been almost only liberals / people on the left who have taken part; the only exceptions are Asherman and McGentrix, with Ellinas being somewhat hard to place on that scale.

Come on rightwingers! Where are you? Timber, Sierra, Finn, Tico, Lash, George, Fox?

  1. Nelson Mandela (South-Africa)

  2. Barack Obama (USA)
  3. Vaclav Havel (Czech Republic)

  4. Kofi Annan (UN)
  5. John Kerry (USA)
  6. Angela Merkel (Germany)
  7. John McCain (USA)
  8. Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva (Brazil)
  9. Ali al-Sistani (Iraq)
  10. Hillary Clinton (USA)
  11. Jacques Chirac (France)
  12. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (Spain)
  13. Tony Blair (UK)

  14. Vladimir Putin (Russia)
  15. Silvio Berlusconi (Italy)
  16. Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)
  17. George W. Bush (USA)

  18. Mu'ammar Gadhafi (Lybia)
  19. Hu Jintao (China)

  20. Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov (Turkmenistan)

Coupla surprises there for me:

- That Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani got so high;

- That Zapatero got so low, especially considering the liberal lean of the sample. Perhaps there was some confusion with Subcomandante Marcos of the Mexican Zapatistas?

Note also that Hugo Chavez cuts no ice on A2K, not with most of the leftwingers either.

John Kerry did better than I expected, whereas the distinctly low position of Hillary, especially, again, considering the Democrat-sympathising slant of the participants, is simply telling.

Which reminds me - where is Blatham?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 07:20 pm
nimh wrote:
ossobuco wrote:
Based on some views I'll have to look harder at Zapatero.

I'm a big fan of his. He campaigned on getting Spain out of the Iraq war, and as soon as he got into power, he did so. He has energetically pursued one courageous political move after another, and yet remained popular.

He implemented a decentralisation policy which afforded Catalonia significant autonomy, in the face of the dogma of Castillian centralism. He's enacted a far-going amnesty for illegals that brought with it the contriversial recognition that Spain has now itself become a country of immigration, and will have to embrace the reality of a multicultural society. He's been reliably progressive in economic policy. And one of the things I like best about him is that, although little immediate electoral rewards could be foreseen and the topic was still largely taboo, one of the first problems he tackled when elected was domestic violence, more broadly coupled with womens rights. Again confronting the entrenched and politically powerful Catholic Church, he also had Spain become only the third country in the world to enact gay marriage.

All of it - both the subjects he tackled and the forthrightness he tackled it with, has given me the impression of a sincere, driven man who sets his priorities based on what he thinks is right rather than on the immediate polls, and plays his cards openly.

ossobuco wrote:
Given those categories, I probably screwed up since I know some less well than others.

Why do you think you screwed up? There's a tension in the two questions I asked in my first post - who do you trust to tell the truth, who do you trust not to f*ck you over - they may not need always overlap, as outlined in posts above. But all anyone can do is just navigate around such paradoxes and draw up the list of whom you trust the best you can. I think thats all anyone here has done.

(Sorry if I sound in any way short, I dont mean to - I should quit responding to MarionT, makes me edgy.)

ossobuco wrote:
Merkel, for example, is an apparent stable sort to me, but I dunno.

I'd agree. Thats why I put her above Chirac, for example, though I agree more often with Chirac, politically.







Ah, well, I didn't look up Zapatero, I assumed him as a leader of Zapatistas. <blushing, digging hole>

And then I only ordered my posts re trust that their words related to their actions, and even within that singular mode, I'm sure I misjudge.

Snarling, yipping, waving hand, participating in my way.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 07:27 pm
But that's the problem with the surprises... how we rate expectation re leaders we disagree with, perhaps strongly, but trust to represent themselves... and then what they might have to do with our own obliteration potential. Tad fuzzy.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 07:38 pm
ossobuco wrote:


Ah, well, I didn't look up Zapatero, I assumed him as a leader of Zapatistas. <blushing, digging hole>



<shoving hot gravel into the hole (and disabling HTML):wink: >
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 08:52 pm
ossobuco wrote:
Ah, well, I didn't look up Zapatero, I assumed him as a leader of Zapatistas. <blushing, digging hole>

Ah, I shoulda written the list straight like Ive done now after all, with full names and countries and everything... that woulda been the right & obvious thing to do <nods>. But I was lazy... Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 09:18 pm
Not your fault, she says dumbly.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 09:21 pm
And besides, where would I put a zapatista leader in this line... I don't know enough (hah, clearly).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/23/2020 at 10:18:30