Purely from an Indian perspective, which presidential (US) candidate is better?

[fineleg]

Just for a minute, if you look at it from India's point of view- which US presidential candidate is better? and why? (not that it may make a big difference, but was just thinking abt it)

[CC1981]

McCain. Barak is against outsourcing...he has catgorically said that if he wins, he will no longer let companies who outsource jobs have the tax-breaks for outsourcing..that will hit the indian service sector huge. Plus, Barak has clubbed India together with Pakistan,Iran and N.Korea as a 'nation with questionable nuclear capabilities and intent) - which alone is a criminal comment from his part. Plus McCain is very much in favour of military deals with India....McCain is better for India, its a no-brainer.

[varun]

McCain. Barak is against outsourcing...he has catgorically said that if he wins, he will no longer let companies who outsource jobs have the tax-breaks for outsourcing

True

Plus, Barak has clubbed India together with Pakistan,Iran and N.Korea as a 'nation with questionable nuclear capabilities and intent)

Link ? This is what he said in congress regarding the US-India nuclear deal

“Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. As I have said before, I believe strengthening the relationship between our two nations is an important strategic goal and this legislation helps us take a dramatic step in this direction. “However, like many of my colleagues, I have concerns with potential non-proliferation consequences of this agreement. Much to my disappointment, the administration has done very little to address these concerns, instead, sending draft legislation to the Congress that was essentially a blank cheque. “The managers of the bill, Senators Lugar and Biden, have done a tremendous job taking the administration’s proposal and shaping it into meaningful, bipartisan legislation. The bill now before the Senate helps move us closer to India while addressing some key non-proliferation issues. “However, I remain concerned about the issue of nuclear testing. A decision by the Indian government to conduct such a test could trigger an arms race in South Asia that would be extremely dangerous and destabilizing. “The good news is that the joint statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh of July 18, 2005, declared that India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing will continue. I take Prime Minister Singh at his word, but also believe in following President Reagan’s mantra of ‘trust but verify’.”

[THX_1138]

Ralph Nadar

[Ram]

In terms of the economic front, it isnt that much of a difference. Yes, Obama has talked about ending tax breaks to companies that shift jobs overseas, but how much of an effect it will have is yet to be seen. Outsourcing weathered the terrible storm that happend in 2004, when it was the forefront of the Presidential race between John Kerry and Bush. If it can survive that, it will surely survive this. And in general, people tend to over-estimate the impact of politics on econmics, atleast in terms of policy making. Most of us would be terribly surprised to know how decoupled economic activity and political policy are. The American President can talk all he wants about ending outsourcing, but in today's flat world, if America doesnt outsource, some other country will and put that American company out of business. Classic case; Boeing and Airbus. Airbus has already talked about moving significant portions of its assembly and production lines to Asia, because of the ever strenghthning Euro. Given the turmoil in the Airline Industry and falling profits, Boeing HAS to follow suit. If it doesnt it only means one thing - They will be out of business. The situation is similar across many sectors. Politically, both players seem equally inclined towards India as a strategic partner. But, Obama has been more adventurous, vis-a-vis his military policy in Pakistan and has openly talked about using military force IN Pakistan to quell the militants. That could have significant geopolitical consequences for South Asia as a whole, opening up a new theatre of war. God knows how the Pakistan military will respond if American troops attack them. McCain has been more guarded on this. And traditionally, the Democrats have always been more pro-India than the republicans. It was Bill Clinton who heralded a new era in Indo-US relations, when he went to India around 2000. Then, it was told that if Al Gore, a known pro-India candidate had won, Indo-US ties would have propelled to another level altogether. Unfortunately, he didnt. But on the flip-side, Bush hasnt been the worst either. Under him, there have been some transformational changes in our relations. He was the one who completely lifted the economic embargo that US had placed on us, after Pokhran 98. He risked derailing the entire non-proliferation treaty and antagonizing the conservatives in his party, when he approved the nuclear deal. He also sanctioned the sale of some hi-tech weapons systems to India, like the Phalcon AWACS. Such gestures were unthinkable, even till a few years ago. In my opinion, it would be incredibly naive for us to favor one candiate over another, based on some isolated press statements they give every now and then. We must remember that this is election year and candidates are trying to woo different sections of the electorate and end up giving gung-ho statements to the press, even if they didnt mean it with conviction. What matters to us is the tide of change in Indo-US relations must be sustained. As long as that happens, it doesnt really matter who comes to power.

[Rajiv]

I am surprised McCain doesn't attach Barak on outsourcing, should be a big issue but lately or typically never heard him talking about it either

[fineleg]

I am surprised McCain doesn't attach Barak on outsourcing' date=' should be a big issue but lately or typically never heard him talking about it either[/quote'] Yes, I too am surprised why McCain is not trying to "use this"...on the other hand, maybe more Americans will not like McCain if he does that.

[Rajiv]

I am surprised McCain doesn't attack Barak on outsourcing' date=' should be a big issue but lately or typically never heard him talking about it either[/quote']

Yes' date=' I too am surprised why McCain is not trying to "use this"...on the other hand, maybe more Americans will not like McCain if he does that.[/quote'] Actually vice-versa

[Ram]

I am surprised McCain doesn't attach Barak on outsourcing' date=' should be a big issue but lately or typically never heard him talking about it either[/quote']

Yes' date=' I too am surprised why McCain is not trying to "use this"...on the other hand, maybe more Americans will not like McCain if he does that.[/quote'] What are you guys talking about? Why should McCain attack Obama on outsourcing?

[Rajiv]

Actually vice-versa

What are you guys talking about? Why should McCain attack Obama on outsourcing?

Mistake went wrong, thats why I said vice-versa

[varun]

I am surprised McCain doesn't attach Barak on outsourcing' date=' should be a big issue but lately or typically never heard him talking about it either[/quote'] Attack for what ? It's a good thing for americans if their jobs aren't outsourced.. India ka president thodi banna hai :cantstop: [Edit: Accha read your post above.. McCain hasn't said that he will keep outsourcing.. he's good that way.. i.e. not committing to anything lol]

[CC1981]

And traditionally, the Democrats have always been more pro-India than the republicans

This is patently untrue. Indo-US relations had best returns under Bush Snr and Bush Jnr- both of whom are/were republicans.

Politically, both players seem equally inclined towards India as a strategic partner. But, Obama has been more adventurous, vis-a-vis his military policy in Pakistan and has openly talked about using military force IN Pakistan to quell the militants. That could have significant geopolitical consequences for South Asia as a whole, opening up a new theatre of war. God knows how the Pakistan military will respond if American troops attack them. McCain has been more guarded on this.

But Bush/McCain etc. have been far more open to giving India weapons and military technologies. That is far better option for India in the long term over a foreign power declaring war in pakistan, ****ing up some more and then ****ing off in a few years.

It was Bill Clinton who heralded a new era in Indo-US relations

That is nothing more than democrat propaganda. Indo-US relations were ushured into a new era under George Bush Snr. Before that, American presidents-irrespective of party- were either apathetic or antagonistic towards India.

In my opinion, it would be incredibly naive for us to favor one candiate over another, based on some isolated press statements they give every now and then. We must remember that this is election year and candidates are trying to woo different sections of the electorate and end up giving gung-ho statements to the press, even if they didnt mean it with conviction. What matters to us is the tide of change in Indo-US relations must be sustained. As long as that happens, it doesnt really matter who comes to power.

Agreed. IMO it is equally naive to miss the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans : Democrats have a more pantheistic worldview, with no clear-cut preference towards 'good/evil' and tend to view situations accordingly. Republicans are far more inclined to label xyz as good or evil and then take steps accordingly. While i agree that on the grand scheme of things, the democratic perspective is of a higher ideal and more true on a long-term basis, the republican tendency to play this good/evil card stands to favour India significantly more. Simply because, the republicans (as well as large sections of western population) have deemed Islam as evil and needing to be dealt with- in this 'front', most see India as an ally, not an enemy- which is PRECISELY WHY the republicans have been the most pro-India in military related issues and the republicans have contributed to indo-US military alliance more than the democrats. As this thread is about purely an Indian perspective, it is fairly categoric that the Republicans are better for India. And on another note- i agree that as a brown man,i'd take the democrat's side over the republican's if i were living in the US, given that the republicans have significant lobbying from radical pro-white/pro-christian groups and conistent republican rule means erosion of social mobility and equity for non-white folks by and large. Infact, i think this is the bottomline why most colored people in the US vote democract and i do think that the pro-democratic perspective of several US-residents on this board is a silent reflection of this salient fact. However, i feel that my viewpoint on this can afford to be more objective to purely an Indo-centric view, as i do not reside in the US, i probably never will reside in the US and US cultural/population dynamics are largely irrelevant to me. In essence, i do need convincing from the pro-democrat US-residents here that their support of the democracts isnt ultimately related to the democrats being more color-friendly in the US.

[fineleg]

As this thread is about purely an Indian perspective, it is fairly categoric that the Republicans are better for India.

Yep, this thread is asking the qn purely from India perspective.

And on another note- i agree that as a brown man,i'd take the democrat's side over the republican's if i were living in the US, given that the republicans have significant lobbying from radical pro-white/pro-christian groups and conistent republican rule means erosion of social mobility and equity for non-white folks by and large. Infact, i think this is the bottomline why most colored people in the US vote democract and i do think that the pro-democratic perspective of several US-residents on this board is a silent reflection of this salient fact. However, i feel that my viewpoint on this can afford to be more objective to purely an Indo-centric view, as i do not reside in the US, i probably never will reside in the US and US cultural/population dynamics are largely irrelevant to me. In essence, i do need convincing from the pro-democrat US-residents here that their support of the democracts isnt ultimately related to the democrats being more color-friendly in the US.

I think you may be correct in that.

[Ram]

This is patently untrue. Indo-US relations had best returns under Bush Snr and Bush Jnr- both of whom are/were republicans.

Could you please point me to one significant foreign policy or economic milestone in Indo-US ties during the Bush Snr. Period? Traditionally, Indo-US ties may have flourished under Republican presidents, but I repeat again, the arrival of Clinton in 99 is really the watershed moment in our ties, post Pokhran 98.

But Bush/McCain etc. have been far more open to giving India weapons and military technologies. That is far better option for India in the long term over a foreign power declaring war in pakistan, ****ing up some more and then ****ing off in a few years.

You’re giving too much credence to press statements. Foreign policy isn’t orchestrated through the press. Besides, Obama has NEVER said he will declare war against Pakistan. All he has said is that he will be more pro-active in seeking out terrorists in Pakistan, even if it means US forces crossing the Pak-Afghan border. Bush has already started authorizing cross-border aerial strikes into Pakistani territory. So really, I don’t see too of much a difference here.

That is nothing more than democrat propaganda. Indo-US relations were ushured into a new era under George Bush Snr.

No way. If you had followed the US presidential election in 2000, which I did, you would know that then, the Indian public opinion was comprehensively in favor of Al Gore being elected as President, given what Clinto had done just then. In fact, I clearly recollect Al Gore giving press statements to the effect of how taking Indo-US ties to the next level would be one of his main foreign policy priorities. We have to keep in mind that, then, we weren’t perceived as the rising super-power as we’re today. For a US presidential nominee to say that, it caused significant waves in the press circles.

Agreed. IMO it is equally naive to miss the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans : Democrats have a more pantheistic worldview, with no clear-cut preference towards 'good/evil' and tend to view situations accordingly. Republicans are far more inclined to label xyz as good or evil and then take steps accordingly. While i agree that on the grand scheme of things, the democratic perspective is of a higher ideal and more true on a long-term basis, the republican tendency to play this good/evil card stands to favour India significantly more. Simply because, the republicans (as well as large sections of western population) have deemed Islam as evil and needing to be dealt with- in this 'front', most see India as an ally, not an enemy- which is PRECISELY WHY the republicans have been the most pro-India in military related issues and the republicans have contributed to indo-US military alliance more than the democrats. As this thread is about purely an Indian perspective, it is fairly categoric that the Republicans are better for India.

And that’s probably the most short-sighted view one could possibly adopt. We live in a flat world and worse, our neighborhood is by far the most dangerous and volatile in the world. The war on terror has already been terribly derailed. US is talking about withdrawing from Iraq, there have been significant setbacks in Afghanistan. What US has managed to do with its war on Terror is to create new centers of unrest and volatility and radicalized previously non-violent section of the Muslim population. The more US keeps waging this war, the harder it will become for us to integrated the 150 million Muslim population into our country, because this war on terror is alienating significant sections of the Muslim population. So, this argument that ‘Republicans see ‘good-evil’ more than Democrats, so its better for India, is terribly blighted and inherently flawed. It is WE, who are paying the price for the global war on Terror, not the West.

[CC1981]

ould you please point me to one significant foreign policy or economic milestone in Indo-US ties during the Bush Snr. Period? Traditionally, Indo-US ties may have flourished under Republican presidents, but I repeat again, the arrival of Clinton in 99 is really the watershed moment in our ties, post Pokhran 98.

First US-Indian military exercise ever under Bush Snr, quadrupling of US-India trade during his tenure as well as for the first time, USA taking a lukewarm perspective on pakistan, including Bush Snr. blocking the sale of (the-then) top of the line F-16s to Pakistan- something that Pakistan is trying to negotiate for till this day. Definitely far more Indo-friendly actions than ANY of the previous presidents combined- democrat or republican.

You’re giving too much credence to press statements. Foreign policy isn’t orchestrated through the press. Besides, Obama has NEVER said he will declare war against Pakistan. All he has said is that he will be more pro-active in seeking out terrorists in Pakistan, even if it means US forces crossing the Pak-Afghan border. Bush has already started authorizing cross-border aerial strikes into Pakistani territory. So really, I don’t see too of much a difference here.

No, i am stating FACTS here. FACTUALLY, Indo-US foreign relations are at their friendliest(under a republican president), FACTUALLY, USA has sold us the formidable phalanx defence system ( first time it is exported to a non-Nato/Japanese nation), the US is considering selling the USS kitty Hawk ( a formidable aircraft carrier) and US's interest to sell us their planes for the MMRCA contest is also well known.USA has also lobbied hard(successfully) to include India in the nuclear import/export club, the USA has sold us (through Israel as proxy) the formidable PHALCON system. All this is under Bush jnr. and i repeat, CATEGORICALLY far far more than ANY democratic president in US's history. That US democrats have been more indo-friendly than the republicans is pure myth and largely based on the fact that democrats are more color friendly in their INTERNAL political matters- which affects indo's positively in the US but out of scope for this topic, which is PURELY on the basis of India as a nation. And the difference between Bush and Obama as i said earlier, is the fact that BUsh and the republicans are FAR MORE OPEN to sell India some vaunted US military technologies as well as lobby for India's behalf on world politics.

No way. If you had followed the US presidential election in 2000, which I did, you would know that then, the Indian public opinion was comprehensively in favor of Al Gore being elected as President, given what Clinto had done just then. In fact, I clearly recollect Al Gore giving press statements to the effect of how taking Indo-US ties to the next level would be one of his main foreign policy priorities. We have to keep in mind that, then, we weren’t perceived as the rising super-power as we’re today. For a US presidential nominee to say that, it caused significant waves in the press circles.

Take your own advice and stop reading too much into the soundbytes. It is irrelevant whether Indian public (who arnt too well informed anyways) percieved a democrat candidate to be more Indo-friendly. I am talking about pure facts here- pure material contribution - foreign policy, economic and military - and in those measurable and quantifiable regards, it is absolutely indisputable that Bush Snr + Bush Jnr = more than ANY democrat president in terms of pro-india policy.

And that’s probably the most short-sighted view one could possibly adopt.

Boolsheet..it is a realist's perspective and as i said, if i were in YOUR shoes- a brown man living in the states, i'd adopt your perspective too as it is no doubt that democracts are more color friendly than the republican base. I am yet to be convinced that your perception on what candidate is better for India as a nation isnt colored by YOUR personal experience in the US - no doubt that it mirrors most Indian's/colored people's perspective.

What US has managed to do with its war on Terror is to create new centers of unrest and volatility and radicalized previously non-violent section of the Muslim population.

Boolsheet. Iraq was radicalized long before the US-Iraq war - the Iraq-Iran war, the baathist takeover was all predominantly radicalized aspects of their society rising to the top. Afghanistan has always been a nutbar of a nation in terms of religious psychosis(atleast in the Islamic era) so your comment that the US has created new centers of radicalized volatility is unfounded and again, reading too much of liberal claptrap.

The more US keeps waging this war, the harder it will become for us to integrated the 150 million Muslim population into our country, because this war on terror is alienating significant sections of the Muslim population. So, this argument that ‘Republicans see ‘good-evil’ more than Democrats, so its better for India, is terribly blighted and inherently flawed. It is WE, who are paying the price for the global war on Terror, not the West.

Boolsheet. India has SPECIFICALLY shied away from participating in the war against terror and India's terrorism problems have remained the same post and pre 9/11. The price we are paying is NOT from the war on terror, the price we are paying is due to Islam's radicalized nature and inherent hatred of the 'kaffirs'. The republicans are simply more inclined to draw a line between 'good and bad' and whether we participate in their war on terror or not, the republicans CLEARLY see India as a strategic ally- where even helping us materialistically (read: military hardware) would go a long way to dent the progress of radical Islam. The fact that India stands to gain materialistically (read: foreign policy and militarily) from a republican candidate is indisputable as well and the material evidence of the republicans versus the democrats in this respect CATEGORICALLY proves my point.

[Ram]

First US-Indian military exercise ever under Bush Snr, quadrupling of US-India trade during his tenure as well as for the first time, USA taking a lukewarm perspective on pakistan, including Bush Snr. blocking the sale of (the-then) top of the line F-16s to Pakistan- something that Pakistan is trying to negotiate for till this day. Definitely far more Indo-friendly actions than ANY of the previous presidents combined- democrat or republican..

Lol, a few military exercises and some blocked arms sales is all you have to show for your argument. First of all, I dont even know whether what you're saying is factually true or not. Please quote me authentic source for all the claims you have made, starting from quadrapuling of trade to the blocking of F-16 sales to Pakistan. First do this and I will adress the rest of your points later.

[CC1981]

Lol, a few military exercises and some blocked arms sales is all you have to show for your argument.

Yes. But my point still stands - 'a few military exercises and blocked arms sales along with quadrupling of the economic ties' is still far more than anything significant under the democrats. Links will follow.

[Lurker]

Just for a minute, if you look at it from India's point of view- which US presidential candidate is better? and why?

For a USA Presidential candidate to be good towards India he should first be good towards his own country. For about half a decade or so I have slowly seen USA moving down a very bad road, a road which seems to look more and more certain for a point of no return. I personally beleive in a strong USA being good for the world, and hence India. Between the two McCain shall weaken USA. Partly this is due to the gentleman that preceeded him. Partly it would be his atitude of selling soul to the right wing. So with him in office you can expect more war and more rhetorics and less of peaceful initiatives. Obama will get USA back to where it should be. xxx

[CC1981]

For a USA Presidential candidate to be good towards India he should first be good towards his own country. For about half a decade or so I have slowly seen USA moving down a very bad road, a road which seems to look more and more certain for a point of no return. I personally beleive in a strong USA being good for the world, and hence India.

The typical liberal high-road of 'greater picture that almost never pans out because it is too idealistic and largely irrelevant'. If USA gets an amazing president who cures US financial woes and pulls out its militaries from the wars its gotten into, it wont do much good for India directly- the jihad against us has nothing to do with the US but everything to do with us being kaffirs. But USA giving us weapons and warming up to us on an international policy basis is tangiably benificial to India. You know very well that i will agree on your preference of democrats over republicans, especially with this election in viewpoint, atleast on facevalue/campaign-value and philosophical basis. But this question is a simple reality check : and reality is simple : republican president equals bigger benifit for republic of India. The scope of this thread is which candidate is better for India - even if Obama were Jesus for his people and McCain the devil, it is irrelevant- what is 'better for us' wouldnt change as long as the Republicans showed bigger inclincation to back us socio-politically , made economic policies that favour us more and protects their economies less ( yes, weakens US, but strengthens India) and most importantly, were more open to selling us weapons. That is the bottomline that i fail to understand why many of the pro-democrats here arn't getting or refusing to address.

[Lurker]

The typical liberal high-road of 'greater picture that almost never pans out because it is too idealistic and largely irrelevant'.

Yes yes that verbal attack always gets your point across. Carry on!

If USA gets an amazing president who cures US financial woes and pulls out its militaries from the wars its gotten into, it wont do much good for India directly- the jihad against us has nothing to do with the US but everything to do with us being kaffirs.

And whats USA gonna do about it? Stop asking other countries to help you out ofb your own mess. USA has been unable to help Pakistan against Jihadists for how many years now?? Heck US has been unable to help out themselves against Jihadis!!! If India has to get a solution against Jihadist it has to come out with a solution on its own. Sure help from International countries are always welcome but that doesnt, hell shouldnt, shape your policy.

But this question is a simple reality check : and reality is simple : republican president equals bigger benifit for republic of India.

How??? Spell it out for me. You are acting as a short-term seller at NYSE who is looking at 1 month window. Help me understand how over a period of say 10-15 years, a good solid run, Republicans are better than say Democrats. That period would be heavily dependent on how these candidates fare in 1(or 2) Presidential stint. Heck I am not sure if McCain would even last a full stint for crying out loud.

That is the bottomline that i fail to understand why many of the pro-democrats here arn't getting or refusing to address.

Because generally speaking Pro-Democrats have a penchant for reasoning perhaps? Instead of taking your, or anyone else's, word on face value they are asking questions, and giving their own viwpoints. Whats your argument with that? xxx