tbh i think most of the world doesnt give a shit about who wins americas presidency.
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?
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.
Too cool for a signature
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.
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.
Polls are just bullshit. If you disagree with the poll, you just get a new one, until you find one that proves your point.
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.
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.
The big difference I see is the American opinions actually count on election day.