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

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.

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 Turkenmenbashi and Hu Jintao?

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.

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

Based on some views I'll have to look harder at Zapatero.

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

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

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.

Oh, and hear hear, Naj.

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.

What did I learn: you can't discuss serious matters with Dutch.

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>

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