Which US president is best for the rest of the world?

[andyandy]

A somewhat glib OP title, but nevertheless....

from an international perspective, that is the main interest - how is the next president going to affect me and my country?

I was going to say that from an international perspective anyone who wasn't a neo-con hawk (or wasn't going to surround themselves with them) would be best in my opinion....but are there any candidates that are likely to be like that?

what is the international thrust of the various candidates?

Are the republican/democrat front runners isolationists? Hawks? Multilateralists? Bent on war with Iran? For the UN? Pro GW/Anti GW? How about their position on trade tarrifs? Etc. Etc....:)

[maxpower1227]

As much as I hate to admit it (being generally conservative), probably Obama or Richardson.

[pipelineaudio]

There are a lot of Chinese and Indians who will be quite sad to see bush go. Unless of course we get another schmuck hell bent on outsourcing.

[Puppycow]

IMO, it should be somebody who is pro-free-trade, pro-diplomacy and multilateralism, and also for reasonable scientifically-grounded measures against global warming (the measures should be those that can also be justified by a rationale other than global warming, such as resource conservation.

I have to say that McCain looks pretty good on Free trade (http://www.issues2000.org/Free_Trade.htm#Headlines). Almost all the others seem to pander to protectionists on something or other, or else to simply not have much of a record or many statements about free trade. McCain has a long track record of support for it.

OTOH, McCain would of course keep as many troops in Iraq as long as possible. Maybe his experience as a POW tells him the boys in uniform can endure years and years of sacrifice to achieve the impossible. It worries me.

On balance, I think I like Obama, but I'm not sure exactly how to articulate it. In the end, since nobody really knows what each candidate would really do once elected, we cannot do more than speculate.

[ScroogeANDMarley]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but Kucinich would be the best president for both legal and illegal aliens.;)

[Brainster]

I don't doubt that if it came down to a vote, more people around the world would choose a (US) Democrat over a Republican. How would that have worked out, though, say in 1980 or 1984; would Eastern Europe still be under the thumb of the Soviets? Would Kuwait be the 13th Iraqi province if Dukakis had beaten Bush, Sr in 1988? Would global temperatures be lower than today if Al Gore had won in 2000?

And that's before we even get into considering that "the rest of the world" is not a monolithic entity. George Galloway (and many others on the far left) may not consider the fall of the Soviet Union as anything to cheer about.

[corplinx]

There are a lot of Chinese and Indians who will be quite sad to see bush go. Unless of course we get another schmuck hell bent on outsourcing.

Bush has been forcing companies to outsource?

[maxpower1227]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but Kucinich would be the best president for both legal and illegal aliens.;)

http://packy.dardan.com/walky/albums/album11/ajm.thumb.jpg

[CptColumbo]

Honestly, I really haven't thought about it. I've been selfish and thinking about domestic policies. I'll have to read some lit. that my grandma in Iowa keeps sending me (they are being buried in snow and leafets).

[ZenFountain]

Richardson given his history of being able to negotiate in hostile situations, reach understandings and produce results. He wears that experience on his shoulder but it is experience no other candidate for President has. Paul and Kucinich win in the friendliness category but the reality is our government is not going to sit down with governments in Iran, Iraq, Syria, China, Russia etc. and work out problems over laughs and fuzzy sentiments. The process begins with talking, but I find both candidates far too naive about world affairs and have no confidence either would understand the complexity of foreign policy. If it truly is a game of carrots and sticks, Kucinich advocates all carrots while Paul rejects both carrots and sticks.

Another practical plus with Richardson is his Hispanic background. Some day we will finally have to deal with our immigration problem and a President that can work with the Mexican government will be essential if we are to ever see a practical solution that does not result in a falling out with Mexico and Central America. One way or another large numbers of illegal aliens will be going home, even the most lax proposal of eventual path to citizenship for some will result in large numbers of deportations. If Mexico in particular were to protest with an economic or oil embargo we would be in very deep trouble methinks.

Unfortunately, Richardson has little chance of being on the Democratic ticket. Progressives have never like him because he's too conservative economically, on gun control and gay rights while he doesn't have the charisma to pull his own centrist base. He also has a tendency to be garrulous and clumsy as public speaker, when the televised debates began the the wheels fell of his campaign.

[New Ager]

The best would be a Republican. Keep the economy humming and a strong military.

A strong America is good for the rest of the world.

The Dems are just running towards socialism, which has already been proven to not work.

Europe anyone?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The best would be a Republican. Keep the economy humming and a strong military.

A strong America is good for the rest of the world.

Yes, Iraq is really strengthening the soldiers...

The Dems are just running towards socialism, which has already been proven to not work.

Europe anyone?

The Democrats want the means of production to be owned by society?

What's so bad about the Scandinavian countries?

[WildCat]

Why should we vote for a POTUS who's "best for the rest of the world"? We will vote for who we think is best for the United States, just as "the rest of the world" puts their own interests first when electing their own officials.

[andyandy]

Why should we vote for a POTUS who's "best for the rest of the world"? We will vote for who we think is best for the United States, just as "the rest of the world" puts their own interests first when electing their own officials.

Sure - there was never any suggestion to the contrary..... ;)

but in terms of international interest the future positions on global warming, the UN, military, etc. etc is what (I expect) most non-Americans want to know about.....

[New Ager]

(Buddha)

Yes, Iraq is really strengthening the soldiers...

(New Ager)

Arguing a point I didn't make.

A free Iraq is good for the world and our country or would you rather have Saddam still in power?

(Buddha)

The Democrats want the means of production to be owned by society?

(New Ager)

Yep, socialism. It doesn't work.

(Buddha)

What's so bad about the Scandinavian countries?

(New Ager)

Yep, those superpower Scandinavian countries. :)

(Andy)

but in terms of international interest the future positions on global warming, the UN, military, etc. etc is what (I expect) most non-Americans want to know about.....

(New Ager)

Yep, just all those liberal non-issues.

[andyandy]

(Andy)

but in terms of international interest the future positions on global warming, the UN, military, etc. etc is what (I expect) most non-Americans want to know about.....

(New Ager)

Yep, just all those liberal non-issues.

we do have QUOTE and MULTIQUOTE features on this forum for a reason - they make people's replies more readable ;)

I'm surprised that ideological positions on global warming, the UN and the military can be dismissed as "liberal non issues." Do you suggest that conservatives have no ideological position on the military, or on international trade? :)

[maxpower1227]

(Buddha)A free Iraq is good for the world and our country or would you rather have Saddam still in power?

A free Iraq, if it turns into a "constitutional theocracy" (a term I think I just made up) or equivalent, is NOT better for the world than a stable, secular dictatorship. It may be better for the Iraqi people, which would present an unfortunate dilemma for us between upholding American values and human rights, and doing what is in the best interest of worldwide stability.

Oversimplifying issues to a one-sentence sound byte doesn't do anybody much good. Please, stop embarrassing your fellow conservatives.

[Darkhole]

Yes, Iraq is really strengthening the soldiers...



The Democrats want the means of production to be owned by society?

What's so bad about the Scandinavian countries?

And The Netherlands? ;)

[Iamme]

The best would be a Republican. Keep the economy humming and a strong military.

A strong America is good for the rest of the world.

The Dems are just running towards socialism, which has already been proven to not work.

Europe anyone?

I think it was Neal Boortz a couple years ago who said that there is always going to be one country in the workd that is going to be the most powerful...and it may as well be us.

How have you been New Ager? Haven't seen you around lately, here or THERE. :)

[New Ager]

(Andy)

we do have QUOTE and MULTIQUOTE features on this forum for a reason - they make people's replies more readable

(New Ager)

We've had this conversation before. I still don't why my posts are so hard to read. Name, quote, name, quote. What is so hard about that?

Plus, if I quote someone's post and chop it up, I have to put all those nonsense codes. Way too much work. Much easier to just put their name.

If there is an easier way, let me know.

(Andy)

I'm surprised that ideological positions on global warming, the UN and the military can be dismissed as "liberal non issues." Do you suggest that conservatives have no ideological position on the military, or on international trade?

(New Ager)

Strong military and free trade.

Global warming is nonsense and the UN is useless.

[New Ager]

(Max)

A free Iraq, if it turns into a "constitutional theocracy" (a term I think I just made up) or equivalent, is NOT better for the world than a stable, secular dictatorship.

(New Ager)

Arguing a point I haven't made.

A constitutional democracy would be better though which would still entail a free Iraq.

You liberals are always looking on the dark side.

(Andy)

Oversimplifying issues to a one-sentence sound byte doesn't do anybody much good.

(New Ager)

I just tell it like it is.

(Andy)

Please, stop embarrassing your fellow conservatives.

(New Ager)

Not so. Believing in liberalism is embarrassing.

(Iamme)

I think it was Neal Boortz a couple years ago who said that there is always going to be one country in the workd that is going to be the most powerful...and it may as well be us.

(New Ager)

Yep.

(Iamme)

How have you been New Ager? Haven't seen you around lately, here or THERE.

(New Ager)

I have been great.

[Kestrel]

The best would be a Republican. Keep the economy humming and a strong military.

A strong America is good for the rest of the world.

The Dems are just running towards socialism, which has already been proven to not work.

Europe anyone?

Europe seems to be doing just fine. They probably miss the American tourists however. Few Americans can afford to visit Europe due to the faltering economy and the dollars plunge in value compared to the Euro.

[maxpower1227]

Arguing a point I haven't made.

A constitutional democracy would be better though which would still entail a free Iraq.

Even if Islamic fundamentalists call all the shots in government? Explain.

You liberals are always looking on the dark side.

I'm not a liberal. Hence this comment:

Please, stop embarrassing your fellow conservatives.

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately, Richardson has little chance of being on the Democratic ticket. Progressives have never like him because he's too conservative economically, on gun control and gay rights while he doesn't have the charisma to pull his own centrist base. He also has a tendency to be garrulous and clumsy as public speaker, when the televised debates began the the wheels fell of his campaign.

Obama/Richardson.

Hmm. I wonder if Hillary fears that combo.

Hillary/Richardson.

A likely pairing, and likely a tough ticket to beat.

DR

[leftysergeant]

A Republican would be a disaster for both America and the world.

Imagine the most heavily-armed twit on your street developing paranoid schizophrenic delusions.

[New Ager]

Europe seems to be doing just fine.

High taxes, socialism running rampant and which of those countries is a superpower?

They probably miss the American tourists however. Few Americans can afford to visit Europe due to the faltering economy and the dollars plunge in value compared to the Euro.

We don't miss them. And our economy is just fine. And as long as liberals don't get ahold of it, it will stay that way.

[leftysergeant]

Our ecconomy is fine onlyforthe deluded investor class.

For labor, it totally sucks.

Those who have money to spend have it because they are somehow vested in an imported product, or have borrowed against the equity in their homes. That means we have, over-all, a negative savings rate and zero expansion of manufacturing.

This is never good.

[New Ager]

Even if Islamic fundamentalists call all the shots in government? Explain.

Every country must break away from tyranny. No one said things would be perfect for Iraq. Our country had a civil war decades after our independence. They too may have growing pains. It was still the right thing to do.


I'm not a liberal. Hence this comment:

You argue like one.

[DrBaltar]

> Which US president is best for the rest of the world?

Who cares?? I have the US in mind first, and the rest of the world is further down the list.

[New Ager]

Obama/Richardson.

Hmm. I wonder if Hillary fears that combo.

Hillary/Richardson.

A likely pairing, and likely a tough ticket to beat.

DR

Another overconfident liberal. Have you taken a look at the electoral college? Could you please tell me all the states that Hillary/Richardson will be winning this time that the Dems didn't win 2004?

I think Hillary is very beatable.

I can hardly wait to see what excuses liberals will come up with to as to why the Republicans won again. I'm sure conspiracies will be part of it.

[New Ager]

Our ecconomy is fine onlyforthe deluded investor class.

For labor, it totally sucks.

Those who have money to spend have it because they are somehow vested in an imported product, or have borrowed against the equity in their homes. That means we have, over-all, a negative savings rate and zero expansion of manufacturing.

This is never good.

Americans just spent over 50 billion on Christmas.

And that is good.

[NeoRicen]

Another overconfident liberal. Have you taken a look at the electoral college? Could you please tell me all the states that Hillary/Richardson will be winning this time that the Dems didn't win 2004?

I think Hillary is very beatable.

I can hardly wait to see what excuses liberals will come up with to as to why the Republicans won again. I'm sure conspiracies will be part of it.
Please, the only excuse we'd come up with is "I guess people really are that dumb". If you want to hear about electoral conspiracies etc. then go talk to Libertarians.

[Kerberos]

> Which US president is best for the rest of the world?

Who cares?? I have the US in mind first, and the rest of the world is further down the list.

Then why are you posting in the thread?

[The Atheist]

Just subscribing to the thread and noting a few gems on the way through.

Nice try, andy....

The best would be a Republican. Keep the economy humming and a strong military.

A strong America is good for the rest of the world.

The Dems are just running towards socialism, which has already been proven to not work.

Europe anyone?

That's so good I nominated it.

Why should we vote for a POTUS who's "best for the rest of the world"?

> Which US president is best for the rest of the world?

Who cares?? I have the US in mind first, and the rest of the world is further down the list.

QED

[dudalb]

> Which US president is best for the rest of the world?

Who cares?? I have the US in mind first, and the rest of the world is further down the list.

Problem is what happens in the rest of the world has a direct impact on what happens in the US, and there is no freaking way you can change that.
That is the most delusional thing about Ron Paul's foreign policy: That we can ignore the rest of the world except for trade,ie,the amount of money we can make from them.
We can lock ourselves in,but we can't lock the world out.

[New Ager]

Please, the only excuse we'd come up with is "I guess people really are that dumb". If you want to hear about electoral conspiracies etc. then go talk to Libertarians.

Not so. Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were situations created by liberals.

I'm sure the Libs will try and cheat again this time around.

That's so good I nominated it.

For most truthful post of the month.

[Corsair 115]

High taxes, socialism running rampant and which of those countries is a superpower?Which one of them has a population equal to that of the United States? Which one of the larger ones did not have two major wars fought on its soil during the last ninety-three years?

And our economy is just fine. Yeah. And the current credit crunch caused by the subprime mess in the U.S. was just a figment of the imagination.

And as long as liberals don't get ahold of it, it will stay that way. *sigh* Once again U.S. politics gets reduced to the binary level of either conservative or liberal, either right or left. Whatever happened to the rest of the political spectrum?

[Richard Masters]

Problem is what happens in the rest of the world has a direct impact on what happens in the US, and there is no freaking way you can change that.
That is the most delusional thing about Ron Paul's foreign policy: That we can ignore the rest of the world except for trade,ie,the amount of money we can make from them.
We can lock ourselves in,but we can't lock the world out.

Ron Paul doesn't endorse ignoring the rest of the world.

In fact, the world likes him quite a bit:

Ron Paul earns the world’s attention
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/08/20/ron-paul-earns-the-worlds-attention/

[corplinx]

Our ecconomy is fine onlyforthe deluded investor class.

For labor, it totally sucks.

Those who have money to spend have it because they are somehow vested in an imported product, or have borrowed against the equity in their homes. That means we have, over-all, a negative savings rate and zero expansion of manufacturing.

This is never good.


The economy of mars?

[The Atheist]

Whatever happened to the rest of the political spectrum?

Didn't it all get banned under the PATRIOT Act?

[Corsair 115]

Didn't it all get banned under the PATRIOT Act?Well, it certainly seems to have disappeared somewhere along the line over the last ten or fifteen years.

[Dr Adequate]

Europe anyone? Now you mention it, my continent is better than yours.

[steverino]

The question here was, "Which president is best for the rest of the world?"

I am seriously shocked that not one person has yet to say that Hillary Clinton would be best. Some here have said she will be hard to beat, but not that she would be the best choice of those running. She is clearly the front runner, so to mention any other candidate as being the best for the rest of the world is another way of saying "not Hillary."

[New Ager]

Which one of them has a population equal to that of the United States?

None. No one wants to live there, but they all want to live in America.



Which one of the larger ones did not have two major wars fought on its soil during the last ninety-three years?



Neither did we. So.



Yeah. And the current credit crunch caused by the subprime mess in the U.S. was just a figment of the imagination.



And yet the economy still smokes on. And isn't the unemployment rate really low? I guess good news escapes liberals.



*sigh* Once again U.S. politics gets reduced to the binary level of either conservative or liberal, either right or left. Whatever happened to the rest of the political spectrum?

US politics is conservative or liberal. There are very few people who are truly moderate. Many claim such, but really lean liberal or conservative.

[New Ager]

Now you mention it, my continent is better than yours.

Hey Doc, you better lay off the spiked Christmas eggnog. It's warping your critical thinking skills. :)

[Corsair 115]

None. No one wants to live there, but they all want to live in America. You have proof for that statement? Or are you engaging in pointless political hyperbole?

And yet the economy still smokes on. And isn't the unemployment rate really low? You're going to have to define "smokes on." There are definite concerns. The descending value of the U.S. dollar, the big decline in new home sales.

I guess good news escapes liberals. More pointless political labelling. It's even more interesting since you assume a view which does not match your own must therefore be of a certain political stripe.

US politics is conservative or liberal. There are very few people who are truly moderate. Many claim such, but really lean liberal or conservative.Perhaps you should start by defining "liberal" and "conservative." I wonder how many would share your particular definitions.

[Darth Rotor]

Another overconfident liberal. Have you taken a look at the electoral college? Could you please tell me all the states that Hillary/Richardson will be winning this time that the Dems didn't win 2004?

I think Hillary is very beatable.

I can hardly wait to see what excuses liberals will come up with to as to why the Republicans won again. I'm sure conspiracies will be part of it.
Me, a liberal?

That's rich.

You new around here?

DR

[DrBaltar]

Problem is what happens in the rest of the world has a direct impact on what happens in the US, and there is no freaking way you can change that.
That is the most delusional thing about Ron Paul's foreign policy: That we can ignore the rest of the world except for trade,ie,the amount of money we can make from them.
We can lock ourselves in,but we can't lock the world out.I know the rest of the world has a direct impact on what happens in the US. But I'm not going to choose a president based on if the rest of the world likes him. Yes he should be able to work with the rest of the world, but the rest of the world doesn't have to like him to work with him. As president of the US, he should put US interests first.