How the World would vote in this election

pandora wrote:

After reading this thread I'm thinking the best way for the world to like us
is to keep a Democratic Pres so we lean more towards what others believe
and have and think we should have.

Too bad that might not be what we want or what is best for US.
Especially looking around the world at some of the examples.

Can you list some of those examples from around the world, so that we can understand where you're coming from here?
And....why is what is best for America so different from what's best for the rest of the world?
Simple answer to that one: hegemony

pandora wrote:

America is a leader not a follower. It was born to be and why it was born at all.

pandora wrote:

American was born to lead why we are a super power,
it was the intention, in my opinion, when it was created or soon thereafter.

ah, yes....welcome to the 19th century....manifest destiny, alive and well, 200 years in....who are you leading?

pandora wrote:

Yes, I have said this before, America is very young,
think of us as the obnoxious two year old in the big history
of this world

American was born to lead why we are a super power,
it was the intention, in my opinion, when it was created or soon thereafter.

We gotta a lot of learning to do but I don't necessarily think a Democratic President
is the correct learning or leaning as we see in other parts of the world.
Maybe we all can learn from the mistakes of others and of course from our own.

Well actually the founders wanted America to stay out of international politics because at the time it didn't have any geopolitical foes, it wasn't until the early 20th century that America started to take a leadership position and even then it took it along time to get involved in both ww1 + ww2

I can not wrap my head around thinking who I would vote for in another country. Let's try. So Candidate A and Candidate B are running for office over there in Country C. Who would I vote for?

Well, neither is going to affect my PTA or my village. Well, who's going to be nicer to my country? Or am I supposed to go altruistic and emphathetic and wonder who is going to take care of the folks in Country C better? Or is it big picture I'm missing, who is better for the planet?

Ok, what do I mean by THAT? Who will take care of mother earth, or who will bring more people out of poverty around the globe? Who will balance those two issue better? Who will be less of an asshole to other countries, to my country?

But wait, are they being a jerk to my country to provide advantage for their country? Do I care more about my country or the advantage he may be giving to the people in his country?

Hold on, what do I even KNOW about these two candidates -- how do I know that? What is my country's media feeding me? What is Country C's media feeding me?

C'mon ... we can't get past the caricatures of the Community Organizer vs the Hedge Fund Manager here in our country -- what perception of the real men do you think the rest of the world has?

Most people can't be bothered to learn the issues for their local PTA or city council, you think I care what they think about mine?

But OK, they'd vote for Obama. I'm supposed to feel better about voting for Obama because folks who WON'T be as impacted by his failures as me thinks it'd be great for them? Great for us? WTF? I can not wrap my head around this.

Obama will be better for all of us Global Citizens? Ha, Bush was the best President Africa has ever seen, just ask Bono. Obama has FAMILY there he won't even help....

acutejam wrote:

I can not wrap my head around thinking who I would vote for in another country. Let's try. So Candidate A and Candidate B are running for office over there in Country C. Who would I vote for?

Well, neither is going to affect my PTA or my village. Well, who's going to be nicer to my country? Or am I supposed to go altruistic and emphathetic and wonder who is going to take care of the folks in Country C better? Or is it big picture I'm missing, who is better for the planet?

Ok, what do I mean by THAT? Who will take care of mother earth, or who will bring more people out of poverty around the globe? Who will balance those two issue better? Who will be less of an asshole to other countries, to my country?

But wait, are they being a jerk to my country to provide advantage for their country? Do I care more about my country or the advantage he may be giving to the people in his country?

Hold on, what do I even KNOW about these two candidates -- how do I know that? What is my country's media feeding me? What is Country C's media feeding me?

C'mon ... we can't get past the caricatures of the Community Organizer vs the Hedge Fund Manager here in our country -- what perception of the real men do you think the rest of the world has?

Most people can't be bothered to learn the issues for their local PTA or city council, you think I care what they think about mine?

But OK, they'd vote for Obama. I'm supposed to feel better about voting for Obama because folks who WON'T be as impacted by his failures as me thinks it'd be great for them? Great for us? WTF? I can not wrap my head around this.

Obama will be better for all of us Global Citizens? Ha, Bush was the best President Africa has ever seen, just ask Bono. Obama has FAMILY there he won't even help....

You are giving the world populace very little credit. It's quite simple. I vote on policy, Obama is closer to my views on policy than Romney. Most first world countries are farther left leaning politically than the US. How is that hard to wrap your head around? I think you may be over thinking it.

The wingnut party, or the guy pushing full steam ahead to kill innocent people with drone attacks while continuing to hold people indefinitely without charge?

Yeah, too right we're going 3rd party.

For the record, Obamacare is too pussy-footed for my liking. NHS, fuck yeah. But then the Tories have been trying to dismantle it.

chime wrote:

acutejam the first news story I heard this morning was about two British soldiers gunned down in Afghanistan. Somewhere they wouldn't have been if our country hadn't agreed to join yours.

This is the reason people elsewhere in the world care about who leads the US. We acknowledge that the size and influence of your country will impact our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.

We also do follow the campaigning in your elections. It's in the newspaper daily. We watch the debates. These make our news reports. Actually a colleague was having a roadtrip through the US during the debates and following the VP debate tried to discuss with an American how they thought the debates had gone and the person in question didn't know the names of the VP candidates.

We accept we live in an international community and therefore take an interest in what is going on throughout the world.

When George W was elected the second time in this country I remember the utter disbelief as people discussed the outcome of the election. Obama's election was greated with not only excitement but relief.

Utter disbelief

I remember then as well and simply could not believe it. We have a radio personality up here that was from the US originally. Great guy, great personality... funny as hell. That day... I remember him talking of it with his co-host and his expression turned sour. As hopeful as he once was leading up to the election, his disappointment in the outcome could not be contained and he uttered these words: "They want him. They deserve him."

I have to admit I felt the same. I also have to admit that I have used the exact expression to describe how I would feel if the US elected the 'less than ideal' candidate currently campaigning.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

chime wrote:

acutejam the first news story I heard this morning was about two British soldiers gunned down in Afghanistan. Somewhere they wouldn't have been if our country hadn't agreed to join yours.

This is the reason people elsewhere in the world care about who leads the US. We acknowledge that the size and influence of your country will impact our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.

We also do follow the campaigning in your elections. It's in the newspaper daily. We watch the debates. These make our news reports. Actually a colleague was having a roadtrip through the US during the debates and following the VP debate tried to discuss with an American how they thought the debates had gone and the person in question didn't know the names of the VP candidates.

We accept we live in an international community and therefore take an interest in what is going on throughout the world.

When George W was elected the second time in this country I remember the utter disbelief as people discussed the outcome of the election. Obama's election was greated with not only excitement but relief.

Utter disbelief

I remember then as well and simply could not believe it. We have a radio personality up here that was from the US originally. Great guy, great personality... funny as hell. That day... I remember him talking of it with his co-host and his expression turned sour. As hopeful as he once was leading up to the election, his disappointment in the outcome could not be contained and he uttered these words: "They want him. They deserve him."

I have to admit I felt the same. I also have to admit that I have used the exact expression to describe how I would feel if the US elected the 'less than ideal' candidate currently campaigning.

Same here. When I talk to friends now about the race for President they say there is now way Romney will get elected. The simple fact is that Bush Jr. was a full term President, enough said.

acutejam wrote:

dignin wrote:

You are giving the world populace very little credit. It's quite simple. ... Most first world countries are farther left leaning politically than the US.

Maybe I put too much faith in John Stewart's proclamation that politics is run by the extremes because everyone in the middle is too busy, you know, working and having a life. It's enough to follow my local politics let alone state or federal, but another nation's? But I get what you're saying - lean left, vote left. I doubt it's got too much to do with any issue-by-issue, policy-by-policy review overall. It's the Community Organizer vs the Hedge Fund manager. Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done ANYTHING is another aspect of this slant.

dignin wrote:

acutejam the first news story I heard this morning was about two British soldiers gunned down in Afghanistan. Somewhere they wouldn't have been if our country hadn't agreed to join yours.

This is the reason people elsewhere in the world care about who leads the US. We acknowledge that the size and influence of your country will impact our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.

We accept we live in an international community and therefore take an interest in what is going on throughout the world.

That's a good point, Chime. I have those US-blinders on -- was thinking about this just generic country to generic country. And a little ticked off by the obvious peer pressure such a poll implies.

What makes sense to you looking in at our country, may not make as much sense to me living here. Priorities mostly, I think we'd actually agree on most policies, but disagree on the weighting.

There's nothing sophisticated about voting to spend massive amounts of money we don't have, about adding more debt, how enlightened does Greece seem to you? In California, our public pension fund is now suing cities that are bankrupt for the money those cities should be paying into the fund.

I think people in Western Europe tend to be more tuned in to politics in general, I'm currently working on a senate campaign in Virginia and the amount of people who don't even know who is running is astounding for me, and this is the most important senate race in the country right now, at home even people who aren't tuned in know who is running on a personal level

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Some people in this thread need to get over themselves....

^this.