[The Horrible Esthete]

It would certainly be difficult to prove for disprove, but failing to do either successfully doesn't make it "untrue".

Unless you care about logic. Remember, I didn't say "that's untrue," I said "that doesn't follow."

I'm sure there are some foreigners whose interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty, while for others, it isn't so much. I don't know. You don't either.

But I do know that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You're now using the old trick of misplacing the burden of proof, so beloved of UFO conspiracy theorists: "well, you can't prove that little green aliens aren't abducting people to perform bizarre experiments with masochistic sexual overtones, so we have to admit that it's possible."

You can't prove that McCain's first action on taking office would not be to turn America's nuclear arsenal on its own cities and incinerate you all. You just don't know! Does this make it a reasonable assertion?

Again, I didn't argue that the world would definitively choose a president for the US that would work to compromise its own soverignty. I asked if it would. And the reason I posed the question is that it would not be a shock to me if the world-at-large would select a leader for the US that limited its global influence as opposed to bolstering it.

Does the fact that foreigners have hijacked American commercial jets and wrecked them into US government buildings and business centers serve as an indication that some might like to see our soverignty weakened?

If so, does that validate my question? How about just giving your opinion in the form of an answer instead of trying to so desperately to pick apart the logical legitimacy of my query?