Page 2 of 33 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Baiyn View Post
    McCarthyism and the Red Scares did a real number on American political discourse. A disdain for Leftist rhetoric and policies meant that a lot of hardline, reactionary Conservatives, who might not be able to gain a platform or build a following in other countries was able to flourish in the States. Combine that with the Constitution being very personal liberty-centric and the First Amendment ensuring separation of Church and State and Conservatism, staunch belief in free-market Capitalism and 'traditional' moral values is disproportionately more popular in the U.S. than in other developed countries. So, fairly hard Right-wing (by global standards) candidates like Romney and other Republicans are favoured by a lot of Americans and anyone that people are suspicious of having a "Socialist" agenda is condemned as anti-American.

    Just my outside perspective/2 cents.
    I think your outside perspective absolutely nails it. Sometimes it's easier to see a picture when you're standing back from it a bit.

  2. #22
    tbh i think most of the world doesnt give a shit about who wins americas presidency.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Ron Paul's ideas are not realistic. At all. And I don't think the RotW really knows what he's actually all about - I think support for him reflects dissatisfaction with the US political establishment moreso than any actual preference for his policies. That or it's because it's one of the countries that like his idea of ending the world police.
    This is a bit off topic but why is ending the world police not realistic? I can see why people would be afraid of Ron Paul's ideas (I'm curious about the effects of a lot of them) but that doesn't make them unrealistic.

    What makes more sense: complaining that our foreign policy sucks and that both candidates have essentially the same view of it, or trying to change how we look at our foreign policy?

  4. #24
    BBC did a similar poll. Only two places in that Romney has a chance are the US and Pakistan.

  5. #25
    Epic! OneSent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dreamland
    Posts
    1,712
    Because when you view the situation from the outside as a non-American, you are not looking at the ideals or empty promises of a man running for officer or of a man who has been in officer for 4 years, but instead, you look at each man for who he appears to be as a person.

    Human beings have a natural sense for judging the good in others. The rest of the world, myself included, is capable of looking past Barack Obama 'the President' to see Barack Obama 'the man'. What most people who are not blinded by distaste for his Presidency will see, is a sincere man who has good intentions in his heart. This is not an exact science of course, but I'm sure most non-Americans supporting Obama would agree with the assessment.

    Since the President's choices affects the lives of Americans more than the rest of the world, many people in the U.S. are willing to put aside any doubts of character for the hope of a better economy, etc. There's a reason why Mitt Romney rubs people the wrong way and there's a reason why Ron Paul is held in such high regard; it's instinct. The numbers you and so many others have provided, will show that.
    Last edited by OneSent; 2012-11-04 at 05:31 PM.

  6. #26
    The Insane peggleftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    16,243
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Ron Paul's ideas are not realistic. At all. And I don't think the RotW really knows what he's actually all about - I think support for him reflects dissatisfaction with the US political establishment moreso than any actual preference for his policies. That or it's because it's one of the countries that like his idea of ending the world police.

    As for Obama vs Romney, American is more centre-right than pretty much all of the (developed) world, so no surprise there.

    You'd have to also take into account the fact that the election is waged in American hearts and minds, so that's where the campaign's actually at. The rest of the world votes on impressions, America votes on extremely, extremely expensive targetted advertising.

    true about the advertising thing, your political speeches and such are weird to watch from over here, it seems to be who can present them selves the best and advertise themselves instead of their actual policies.thats just what it looks like anyway.
    Too cool for a signature

  7. #27
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,778
    Quote Originally Posted by zeophor View Post
    BBC did a similar poll. Only two places in that Romney has a chance are the US and Pakistan.
    Thats pretty crazy considering the current relationship with Pakistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  8. #28
    Honestly I think this video here gives you a clear idea of how most Americans operate. Most of us just blindly going with whatever sounds nice. As they say the blind leading the blind.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Annapolis View Post
    This is a bit off topic but why is ending the world police not realistic? I can see why people would be afraid of Ron Paul's ideas (I'm curious about the effects of a lot of them) but that doesn't make them unrealistic.

    What makes more sense: complaining that our foreign policy sucks and that both candidates have essentially the same view of it, or trying to change how we look at our foreign policy?
    It's his economic ideas that are childish and petulant, not the idea of scaling back foreign influence.

  10. #30
    Fluffy Kitten Baiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    York, Blighty
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I think your outside perspective absolutely nails it. Sometimes it's easier to see a picture when you're standing back from it a bit.
    Glad it's not complete gibberish to everyone then. (Cleared my post up a little bit and added a couple more points as it felt like a bit of a inconclusive wall'o'text.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Himora View Post
    tbh i think most of the world doesnt give a shit about who wins americas presidency.
    They should. The American market is extremely important to the rest of the global economy and U.S. - U.N. relations and policies have a big effect on international affairs.
    Last edited by Baiyn; 2012-11-04 at 05:33 PM.

  11. #31
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Schmocation
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Trotheus View Post
    Agreed. I would also point out that Europeans already don't enjoy full freedom of speech - hurting someone's feelings is illegal, it's called "incitement to hatred". It's mostly only enforced when religions are insulted, with many people (Brits especially) recently getting 1-3 month jail sentences for words they spoke. Given the way Europe feels about free speech, they wouldn't see anything wrong with Obama, who signed anti-blasphemy legislation at the US this year which would take precedence over the US constitution's first amendment. Americans, meanwhile, are not fond of a president who finds loopholes to go around our constitution.
    As an Englishman who's liberal by our standards - so god knows what that makes me in the US - this is not as true as you might think. Yes, the Labour government passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act in 2006. This criminalises the act of "inciting hatred" against someone on the grounds of their religion. However, a huge number of people were against it, from extreme ends of the political spectrum. From the extreme right, like the BNP, because it meant that they had to stop being racist. From the left, because a lot of people in Britain value freedom of speech more than you realise. You can't be imprisoned simply for "hurting someone's feelings," although there are a lot of people, from virtually all backgrounds, who would like others silenced because what they say "offends" them. Fortunately, there is a sizeable number here who are directly opposed to such thinking.

    One thing that the Labour government DID do well with regard to free speech, was to abolish the blasphemy law in Britain. I applaud them for it, and while I don't know too much about this anti-blasphemy law you mention, I'd condemn Obama if it limited speech.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by BoomChickn View Post
    Now my personal theory on this is that most of the difference is based on history. Europe and most other countries were ruled by kings, which meant a powerful government, which the democratic view supports more than republicans (Economy wise at least).
    Kings don't mean powerful governments at all. The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are examples where the sovereign is extremely, extremely weak. The Habsburg emperors based their power on their personal domains and could not prevent the imperial princes from gaining sovereignty. The old Polish anarchy is infamously encapsulated by the liberum veto and lead to the (temporary) total disintegration of what used to be a major state.

  13. #33
    Polls are just bullshit. If you disagree with the poll, you just get a new one, until you find one that proves your point.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Annapolis View Post
    This is a bit off topic but why is ending the world police not realistic?
    I'm referring to the rest of his policies. Non-intervention is plausible though unlikely to happen any time soon; much of the rest of his beliefs are unworkable. For instance, ending the income tax.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-04 at 05:37 PM.

  15. #35
    Bloodsail Admiral Chickensoup23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    egypt
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Strakha View Post
    Polls are just bullshit. If you disagree with the poll, you just get a new one, until you find one that proves your point.
    But most say the same thing. Find me a few that disagree's with the ones I linked (OP here).

  16. #36
    Scarab Lord slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA PA
    Posts
    4,095
    I question the rest of the world's motives. I think they would prefer to see us fail, so they pick the president they think will be best and quickest at getting us there.

  17. #37
    It's a combination of education and media exposure.

    The rest of the world isn't indoctrinated into the "'Hurr Durr Murica" bullshit that exists in the states and without this and all the religious nonsense we can all see Romney for the lying piece of shit that he really is. At least in the UK, you simply cannot lie the way he does without getting called on it, and you can't hide behind an anti-Obama mantra when you are asked what your policies are. People want to know what you are going to do, we already know what the other guy did and we don't need you to tell us.

    It also helps that in many countries, (UK and Canada included) there are laws which prevent you from lying and calling it news. If you are a newstation or a newspaper you legally could not tell the lies that Fox News does. You would be forced to issue a retraction and apology or have your broadcasting license revoked so we cut through all that crap that you guys get fed daily. Try watching the BBC News channel and you'll see what actual reporting looks like and while it's not as entertaining or sensational, it leaves people far better informed.

    Religion is also a factor I guess, because the American right wing panders to the sort of people that the rest of the world would put in mental institutions. We see Romney aligning himself with people that want abortion and contraception banned and the fact that these are even political issues is just mind-boggling to people that live in countries that have left religion back in the 18th century where it belongs.

  18. #38
    Epic! OneSent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dreamland
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    I question the rest of the world's motives. I think they would prefer to see us fail, so they pick the president they think will be best and quickest at getting us there.
    Considering the rest of the world depend on us for certain things, just as we depend on them, I doubt that is the case.

  19. #39
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Schmocation
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    I question the rest of the world's motives. I think they would prefer to see us fail, so they pick the president they think will be best and quickest at getting us there.
    Quite the opposite. America's size and power means that if it prospers, that makes it more likely that other countries will as well. Plus a lot of people in the UK are concerned about Republican foreign policy, in particular with regards to Iran, especially with Netanyahu getting antsy for a fight.

  20. #40
    The big difference I see is the American opinions actually count on election day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •