Poll: Who will win Ohio in 04?

[lidaker]

5% is not a landslide. Bush was the benefit of the electoral college, to make his data look overwhelming.

It was almost 8%.

While Dukakis lost 46-53 nationally, he was not far from winning a couple of states that would had changed the electoral vote total dramatically. He lost CA 48-51, PA 48-51, IL 49-51 and there were similar results in a couple of states with less electoral votes. So it wasn't really a landslide.

[lidaker]

5% is not a landslide. Bush was the benefit of the electoral college, to make his data look overwhelming.

It was almost 8%.

While Dukakis lost 46-53 nationally, he was not far from winning a couple of states that would had changed the electoral vote total dramatically. He lost CA 48-51, PA 48-51, IL 49-51 and there were similar results in a couple of states with less electoral votes. So it wasn't really a landslide.

Yep. Where in Sweden do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

(hm, jag kanske borde säga det här på svenska istället... )

Läser man inte svenska i amerikanska skolor? Dumma outbildade jänkare ;-)

No but seriously. I live in Uppsala. And you?

[lidaker]

And which party do you support back here?

[lidaker]

True! But it should be "this" instead of "it here"... What does your translation program say about my sentences? ;-)

[lidaker]

Ha ha ha... that's great!

People speak like that here when they don't know English. It's a translation word-by-word that doesn't take into account the context.

Modern Swedish has not really much in common with modern English. But I think we have contributed with two words that's used today: "smorgasbord" and "ombudsman". Two typically Swedish phenomena...

[lidaker]

5% is not a landslide. Bush was the benefit of the electoral college, to make his data look overwhelming.

It was almost 8%.

While Dukakis lost 46-53 nationally, he was not far from winning a couple of states that would had changed the electoral vote total dramatically. He lost CA 48-51, PA 48-51, IL 49-51 and there were similar results in a couple of states with less electoral votes. So it wasn't really a landslide.

Yep. Where in Sweden do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

(hm, jag kanske borde säga det här på svenska istället... )

Läser man inte svenska i amerikanska skolor? Dumma outbildade jänkare ;-)

No but seriously. I live in Uppsala. And you?

In Nacka, outside Stockholm. I'm gonna explain my political stands in Sweden in Swedish, since it's a lot easier with the political labels...

Jag är oberoende liberal, och skulle troligen stödja moderaterna om de inte var så elitistiska och EU-vänliga. Du då?

Damn you Gus! You are making me work here.

Well, what can I say? I love work, I can sit for hours and just watch people work.

OK, I'll take it in Swedish AND English since some terms are difficult to translate (liberal in Swedish is not quite the same as liberal in American politics).

I'm not sure which party I would support today. I know I wouldn't support Vänsterpartiet (Left Party), Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democrats) or Moderaterna (Conservatives). I probably wouldn't support Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats) or Miljöpartiet (Greens) either, because I would favor a regeringsskifte (change of governments).

I see myself as a socialliberal (socially liberal, sort of) but I'm not particularly fond of the leading Folkpartiet (Liberal Party) politicians, like Lars Leijonborg and Jan Björklund. The former party leaders Bengt Westerberg and Gunnar Helén sort of reflected my views.

Why don't you like the EU? Are you one of those gammelnationalistiska högerstötar?

;-)))

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:-)

In what way is the EU a threat to freedom and individual rights? I see it quite opposite. The EU benefits freedom and individual rights. For example, the former communist countries that will soon join have had to adjust their legislation so it takes into account the situation of the minorities. Turkey wants to be a member and is currently adjusting their attitude towards the kurds etc.

By the way, how do you make those gula gubbar?

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:-)

In what way is the EU a threat to freedom and individual rights? I see it quite opposite. The EU benefits freedom and individual rights. For example, the former communist countries that will soon join have had to adjust their legislation so it takes into account the situation of the minorities. Turkey wants to be a member and is currently adjusting their attitude towards the kurds etc.

By the way, how do you make those gula gubbar?

Well, if you're a former communist country, it's an improvement. I mean, if Turkey was more civilized than Europe, ew'd be in real trouble. The EU is basically about reducing Europe's dependence on the out-side world through internal cooperation. It's a natural step by politicians beleaguered by globalization. The EU is very clearly moving in a protectionist direction and an organization created by politicians will never be very democratic, as a simple effect of vested interest.

And, gubbarna are created through the use of colons, :, parenteser ), etc. If you quote my post you can see what I have written to create them:











osv.

Thank you. Tack du.

I sort of agree that there are protectionist tendencies in the EU, some politicians seems to think that Europe is the only region that exists in this world, which is not good since the real problem is the third world countries. The EU agricultural policy is a big problem for example.

But I think there's a need for the EU to act as a counterbalance to the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy. That is, if the countries will be able to cooperate and create a united approach to foreign policy questions, which they haven't, so far. Europe is generally more concerned about solving different military conflicts than the U.S. is.

When the U.S. president is Bush, though, it really doesn't matter 'cause he don't care anyway.

[lidaker]

Lildaker,

Why don't you come on down to the fantasy elections?

I've heard of those fantasy elections. It's some sort of game, right?

[lidaker]

Lildaker,

Why don't you come on down to the fantasy elections?

I've heard of those fantasy elections. It's some sort of game, right?

Kind of.  We have mock elections... a mock constitution... mock political parties...

What's the difference between the progressive party and the democrats? Are there some sort of platforms?

[lidaker]

that;s the forum

http://newprogressive.proboards25.com/index.cgi

you'll see the site link there too

Item 1 - Healthcare
We support free healthcare for all children and the elderly. We support free healthcare for all those on low incomes. We support a means-tested payment towards healthcare for those on higher incomes; For those on large incomes, healthcare will not be free.
Item passed with unanimous majority (4-0)

Item 2 - The Environment
We support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its full implementation. We support the concept of a "World Environmental Organisation" that will enforce the Kyoto protocol and police industry from deliberately damaging the environment.
Item passed with unanimous majority (4-0)

Item 3 - Gay Marriage
We support the concept of gay marriage or civil union, with all the benefits of heterosexual marriage.
Item passed by a majority of 3-1

Item 4 - Education
We support the repeal of the "No child left behind act". We support the increase of education funding.
Item passed with unanimous majority (4-0)


Is that all? I agree on it, but it seems like quite a lightweight platform.

[lidaker]

Allright, do you have the link to the democratic party website so I can compare the parties? By the way, do I register in the US Election Atlas forum or on your forum or in both places?

[lidaker]

OK. I'll register as a progressive.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:-)

In what way is the EU a threat to freedom and individual rights? I see it quite opposite. The EU benefits freedom and individual rights. For example, the former communist countries that will soon join have had to adjust their legislation so it takes into account the situation of the minorities. Turkey wants to be a member and is currently adjusting their attitude towards the kurds etc.

By the way, how do you make those gula gubbar?

Well, if you're a former communist country, it's an improvement. I mean, if Turkey was more civilized than Europe, ew'd be in real trouble. The EU is basically about reducing Europe's dependence on the out-side world through internal cooperation. It's a natural step by politicians beleaguered by globalization. The EU is very clearly moving in a protectionist direction and an organization created by politicians will never be very democratic, as a simple effect of vested interest.

And, gubbarna are created through the use of colons, :, parenteser ), etc. If you quote my post you can see what I have written to create them:











osv.

Thank you. Tack du.

I sort of agree that there are protectionist tendencies in the EU, some politicians seems to think that Europe is the only region that exists in this world, which is not good since the real problem is the third world countries. The EU agricultural policy is a big problem for example.

But I think there's a need for the EU to act as a counterbalance to the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy. That is, if the countries will be able to cooperate and create a united approach to foreign policy questions, which they haven't, so far. Europe is generally more concerned about solving different military conflicts than the U.S. is.

When the U.S. president is Bush, though, it really doesn't matter 'cause he don't care anyway.

Ah, yes, the counter-balance argument is much liked in Europe and Sweden. It's based though on the notion that Europe or the EU would somehow be better than the US, so that we should accept all the flaws to improve the system. That isn't the case though, imo. EU foreign policy has traditionally been run by the French, who have no sense of morality. And you don't have a counter-weight that's worse, that's like sayong we needed the Soviet Union. I don't really view the EU as a credible alternative or balance to the US. The main foreign policy idea is to preserve the old European great power's influence in the world. And I have very little interest in doing that.

I think you're a little bit xenophobic here. The current French government doesn't have a great sense of morality, but there have been better presidents than Chirac even if France is a little more narrow-minded and nationalistic than other countries in Europe. When it comes to preserving the influence of ones power vs making the world a better place, I think that the US more often than Europe takes the former stance. Look at the presidencies of Reagan and G.W. Bush for example, the Kyoto protocol, the war crimes court etc.

[lidaker]

Well, in some countries in Europe sheer nationalism often dictates the foreign policy approach, I'll give you that. But generally I still see a greater interest in solving conflicts and crises in Europe than in America. What good has the U.S. done about the situation in Chechnya for example? And how interested is Bush about establishing peace in Israel? In that case Europe takes a far more productive position.

This is not ALWAYS the case though, Clinton did some good things during his second term. He wanted to act in Kosovo whereas the Europeans favored doing nothing etc.

[lidaker]

Well, in some countries in Europe sheer nationalism often dictates the foreign policy approach, I'll give you that. But generally I still see a greater interest in solving conflicts and crises in Europe than in America. What good has the U.S. done about the situation in Chechnya for example? And how interested is Bush about establishing peace in Israel? In that case Europe takes a far more productive position.

This is not ALWAYS the case though, Clinton did some good things during his second term. He wanted to act in Kosovo whereas the Europeans favored doing nothing etc.

Some would argue that Kosovo was Europe problem. Then again, Iraq was our problem.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you only take into account geopolitical considerations, neither Kosovo nor Iraq was a problem for anyone outside those countries. The Kosovo situation wasn't going to spread and Saddam couldn't and wouldn't have attacked US or any neighboring country. But when people are being systematically killed and there's a threat that genocide will erupt, then I think it becomes a matter for all humanity.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a bit misleading, to say the least, to judge the European policy towards Russia by what Berlusconi, this stupid, corrupt, distasteful extreme right-wing clown, says when he talks to Putin. Generally the European policy towards Russia in this respect is much better than the American one. At least they try to highlight the humanitarian crisis there, whereas the US does nothing. They could probably have done more, but it's better than doing nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Europe not interested in peace in Israel? I respectfully but strongly disagree on this one.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a bit misleading, to say the least, to judge the European policy towards Russia by what Berlusconi, this stupid, corrupt, distasteful extreme right-wing clown, says when he talks to Putin. Generally the European policy towards Russia in this respect is much better than the American one. At least they try to highlight the humanitarian crisis there, whereas the US does nothing. They could probably have done more, but it's better than doing nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Europe not interested in peace in Israel? I respectfully but strongly disagree on this one.

Well, Berlusconi is bad, but he's a European leader. He's only part of the picture of course, but nonetheless, he is a part of it.

And when it comes to being interested in peace, I guess it depends on how you define being interested. It's a matter of priority. I think most people would be happy to see a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I don't see the EU being sufficently interested to  make sacrifices to get there. Why would they care? There is no immediate interest, other than defusing Muslims, and that not a good starting point, I fear.

I think you are a little one sided in your support for the US and your disdain for Europe, Gustaf

First of all,  Berlusconi's comments were strongly rebuffed by other European leaders.

Secondly, what kind of "sacrifices" can Europe do to move the process in the right direction? America sort of controls the situation since they are allied with Israel and have interests in the Arab countries' oil possession. If the US don't really care, it's hard for other parts to do something. And when they take such stances as they did a cuople of days ago, the process won't move forward.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's better to be irrelevant and try to do something than to be relevant and not do anything/move the process in the wrong direction.

But I would agree on the notion that many Europeans seems to think their countries have higher moral standards than they actually have.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's better to be irrelevant and try to do something than to be relevant and not do anything/move the process in the wrong direction.

But I would agree on the notion that many Europeans seems to think their countries have higher moral standards than they actually have.

My point is that it might not be as easy as some people think. The Bush administration will support ISrael, and as long as the Israeli government is the way it is, nothing will happen. If the EU would handle it I don't think they'd be better. However, they can pretend that they would be, since no one would ever let them.

I think the EU would do a better job. They are generally more aware of the Palestinian situation and of Israel's refusals to follow international law. The main problem here the way I see it is America's unbalanced support for Israel.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's better to be irrelevant and try to do something than to be relevant and not do anything/move the process in the wrong direction.

But I would agree on the notion that many Europeans seems to think their countries have higher moral standards than they actually have.

My point is that it might not be as easy as some people think. The Bush administration will support ISrael, and as long as the Israeli government is the way it is, nothing will happen. If the EU would handle it I don't think they'd be better. However, they can pretend that they would be, since no one would ever let them.

the israeli goverment just decided to pull out of Gaza; is that nothing

Well...I am not convinced of the unilateral withdrawal thing yet. I am holding my call on that. I hope it'll work, that would obviously be good, but I'm not sure about it.

I agree. I don't trust Sharon.

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's better to be irrelevant and try to do something than to be relevant and not do anything/move the process in the wrong direction.

But I would agree on the notion that many Europeans seems to think their countries have higher moral standards than they actually have.

My point is that it might not be as easy as some people think. The Bush administration will support ISrael, and as long as the Israeli government is the way it is, nothing will happen. If the EU would handle it I don't think they'd be better. However, they can pretend that they would be, since no one would ever let them.

I think the EU would do a better job. They are generally more aware of the Palestinian situation and of Israel's refusals to follow international law. The main problem here the way I see it is America's unbalanced support for Israel.

And that would lead where? The EU would piss off Israel, who would accuse Europe of falling back into anti-semitism. The EU has little or no credibility in this field. Like on most issues, I guess. It's a moot point anyway, since Israel cannot indirectly or directly negotiate with the sucude bombers, which is what they're actually interested in. Arafat is really a nobody.

If that's the case, Israel and the US should have supported the guy from the Palestinian authority that was trying to take Arafat's place. Instead, they made the situation worse for that poor fellow.

[lidaker]

Where's the onesidedness in my statements?

[lidaker]

Where's the onesidedness in my statements?

You are saying that the USA supports Israel as they are unaware of the Palestinian situation and talk about Israel's refusal to follow international law, you seem to be ragging on Israel and promoting Palestine with your statement.

Allright, I might have have crossed the line a little bit there, however it's a fact that Israel doesn't care much about what the UN says. And I don't think that the current US administration takes into account the situation in Palestine. People who have visited Palestine and talked with Palestinians tend to have a more balanced view, for example NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, who, by the way, is a Jew himself.

[lidaker]

Where's the onesidedness in my statements?

You are saying that the USA supports Israel as they are unaware of the Palestinian situation and talk about Israel's refusal to follow international law, you seem to be ragging on Israel and promoting Palestine with your statement.

Allright, I might have have crossed the line a little bit there, however it's a fact that Israel doesn't care much about what the UN says. And I don't think that the current US administration takes into account the situation in Palestine. People who have visited Palestine and talked with Palestinians tend to have a more balanced view, for example NYT columnist Thomas Friedman.

Well, the UN is controlled by a majority of corrupt dictatures. And sometimes even democratic countries, such as Sweden, fail to stand up against that.

While there's a need for reform in the UN it's not true by any means that it's controlled by corrupt dictatorships. Just as it's not true that the European foreign policy is run by the evil French or that European politicians sees the Chechnya situation the way Berlusconi does. I think you're reacting to some of my views that you consider to be a little bit naive and pro-European, however I think that our positions in fact are quite the same, or at least quite similar.