46 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

I thought President Obama was more popular overseas, because his foreign policy is to leave everyone else alone, and concentrating on doing what he can (not much) here at home. He has basically ignored Europe and the Middle East, allowing everyone else to lead and allowing everyone else to just do as they please.

Some will say that is GREAT. But, everything that happens overseas Does Affect the US also. Thus, it is in our own interests to meddle, and since no one likes a Meddler, and Obama does not meddle... everyone overseas likes him.

[with bells on]

RavenHawk, on 05 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Why am I not surprised by the results here?  I may have missed one, but it seems that Obama is big overseas.  That is why I voted for someone else.  And this proves that people of like kind are attracted to each other.

Obama is big overseas cause he has celebrity energy and is kind of cool, at least compared to that moron George Bush.. the whole world pretty much hated the USA, he has at least made America and Americans look somewhat rosy and calmed all that angst towards it. (insert smile face here!) so at least we don't laugh at you and curse you now...  give Romney a year, and im sure that will change.. woof..

Edited by with bells on, 05 November 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

acidhead, on 05 November 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Obama is big over seas because he's black... at least partially anyhow.  His mother is whiter than mine,

Don't be patronising.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

I thought President Obama was more popular overseas, because his foreign policy is to leave everyone else alone, and concentrating on doing what he can (not much) here at home. He has basically ignored Europe and the Middle East, allowing everyone else to lead and allowing everyone else to just do as they please.

Some will say that is GREAT. But, everything that happens overseas Does Affect the US also. Thus, it is in our own interests to meddle, and since no one likes a Meddler, and Obama does not meddle... everyone overseas likes him.

And you don't think that leaving other countries alone, rather than, say, invading them, might persuade them to be more favourably disposed towards the US? And that the opposite, e.g. an Aggressive (i.e. Meddling) foreign policy might be counterproductive in that it would stir up antagonism, and add yet more to the list of those that hate America™?
i expect you will probably point to the case of Iran as a Danger that an Aggressive foreign policy should deal with before it's too late; but I'm afraid that you'd have to blame former president G.W. Bush if people aren't entirely convinced by that argument, since he comprehensively discredited whatever arguments there may have been for it in the first place with his vendetta- er, Aggressive foreign policy against Iraq and the War Against Terror.

[Rafterman]

Likely Guy, on 04 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

I'm a Canadian and I'd vote for Obama.

The reason why is because the current economic malaise that the US is in, happened in the economic meltdown a few months before Obama was elected.

To expect him to have rectified that mess in four years is unreasonable.

Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to regulate their banking system. That may eventually happen under an Obama administration. That will never, ever happen under a Romney administration.

Can I come and vote in your election too?

[FLOMBIE]

Do you have any German ancestry? If yes, feel free to vote in ours. We do need more active voters.

[RavenHawk]

with bells on, on 05 November 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

Obama is big overseas cause he has celebrity energy and is kind of cool, at least compared to that moron George Bush..

Being in the Land of Oz, I don’t know if you have access to American TV, but if you’ve seen “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno?  You’re aware of a segment called “Jaywalking”, where he talks to people on the street and asks them trivia questions or on American History.  Every single one of them are morons or so it appears.  Some people are just naturally, unnatural in front of the camera.  Bush is one of those.  He’s a very simple man that the MSM just tore up because he was not photogenic.  Now Obama, on the other hand is *smooth* in front of that camera.  He knows how to use it.  Have you ever ran into one of those kids that appear to just look through you?  They see you for what you are.  They see beyond your façade.  I was one of those kids and even today I still see through people’s facades.  Obama scares the crap out of me.  His façade is so phony.  It sets off just too many red flags.  But the real morons are the ones that fall for that kind of charisma.

Quote

the whole world pretty much hated the USA, he has at least made America and Americans look somewhat rosy and calmed all that angst towards it. (insert smile face here!) so at least we don't laugh at you and curse you now...  give Romney a year, and im sure that will change.. woof..

I thought the whole world hated the USA anyway?  And from what I can tell, what has been going on in Libya, I’d say the world hates us even more.  Or at least until the next time a natural disaster strikes.  Then we’re loved at least until aid is delivered.  I don’t want my President to be a celebrity in other countries.  I don’t want America to be liked because of a dog and pony show.  I’d rather have a President viewed as an a-$$ but one that controls respect because he makes the right decisions and not worry about what the Europeans think.  Whether or not Romney will be that President, I don’t know but he would be better than Obama.

[OverSword]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

I thought President Obama was more popular overseas, because his foreign policy is to leave everyone else alone, and concentrating on doing what he can (not much) here at home.

Are you high?  Reportedly, every Tuesday he looks at a list of potential drone targets then decides who will be killed without a trial in a foriegn soveriegn nation.  I guess some people don't see the conflict of interest between those actions and libertarian American values.

Edited by OverSword, 05 November 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[RavenHawk]

Likely Guy, on 04 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

The reason why is because the current economic malaise that the US is in, happened in the economic meltdown a few months before Obama was elected.

For the benefit of non Americans, the meltdown occurred right after the 110th Congress was seated in 2007 and Senator Dodd became Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Representative Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  Truly a perfect storm for what was coming.  Yes, it occurred on Bush’s watch (he didn’t cause it), but he was incapable to stop it.  We had what basically amounted to a coup d’etat without firing a shot.  It’s interesting to note that Dodd has already retired and Frank will be retiring at the end of the year.

Quote

To expect him to have rectified that mess in four years is unreasonable.

I was not expecting him to rectify that mess in four years but at least show that he was capable to turn it around rather than make it worse.  But he never wanted to improve things.  He needed it to remain bad so that he could make fundamental change to the system to make us more like Europe.  Well, Europeans, you are close friends, great allies, a great place to visit but we are not you so don’t expect us to be.

[Eldorado]

None of the above.  (I don't trust folk who are schooled in how to lie with a straight face, i.e. most politicians)

[Leah G.]

RavenHawk, on 05 November 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

For the benefit of non Americans, the meltdown occurred right after the 110th Congress was seated in 2007 and Senator Dodd became Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Representative Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  Truly a perfect storm for what was coming.  Yes, it occurred on Bush's watch (he didn't cause it), but he was incapable to stop it.  We had what basically amounted to a coup d'etat without firing a shot.  It's interesting to note that Dodd has already retired and Frank will be retiring at the end of the year.


I was not expecting him to rectify that mess in four years but at least show that he was capable to turn it around rather than make it worse.  But he never wanted to improve things.  He needed it to remain bad so that he could make fundamental change to the system to make us more like Europe.  Well, Europeans, you are close friends, great allies, a great place to visit but we are not you so don't expect us to be.

OMGosh!!! Someone gets it, you're right, so darn right!!! I'm so happy to see that someone gets it!!! I can't say I liked Bush all that much but you shouldn't blame someone that isn't at fault. It was the democrats. I must admit, when he was president, I felt safer than I do now. Our system is a bit overly complicated and hard for people outside this country to understand, heck it's hard for some of us here to understand. Our presidents aren't as powerful as you think, it's sort of a 3 part system or was designed that way, president-congress-legislature. If I remember correctly anyway.

Leah

[Corp]

American politcs on the whole tends to be to the right of most of the rest of the Western world. So their left wing is our right wing. Their right wing is our holy crap you guys are crazy. Until the GOP moves back towards the centre the world is going to be rooting for the Dems.

[questionmark]

Corp, on 05 November 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

American politcs on the whole tends to be to the right of most of the rest of the Western world. So their left wing is our right wing. Their right wing is our holy crap you guys are crazy. Until the GOP moves back towards the centre the world is going to be rooting for the Dems.

Well, it is difficult to stomach anything right from LePen....

[DieChecker]

747400, on 05 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

And you don't think that leaving other countries alone, rather than, say, invading them, might persuade them to be more favourably disposed towards the US? And that the opposite, e.g. an Aggressive (i.e. Meddling) foreign policy might be counterproductive in that it would stir up antagonism, and add yet more to the list of those that hate America™?
i expect you will probably point to the case of Iran as a Danger that an Aggressive foreign policy should deal with before it's too late; but I'm afraid that you'd have to blame former president G.W. Bush if people aren't entirely convinced by that argument, since he comprehensively discredited whatever arguments there may have been for it in the first place with his vendetta- er, Aggressive foreign policy against Iraq and the War Against Terror.

Where did I say we should invade? Anyway... How many (recent... 20 years) invasions by the US were unilateral and had no backing of the UN? None. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.... All had UN backing of the US.

Look at all the Many, many, many places the US has been "Meddling" and helped one nation after another. Many nations of the world are free nations because the US meddled. When the UN goes to help some nation, who do they call? The EU (With more soldiers combined then the US)? No. They go straight to the US and try to secure help, then lobby other nations into also helping.

The US is the Policeman of the World, and it sucks. The police are reviled in many of the citys they serve in, yet the honest citizens honor them. Those nations that are corrupt or dictatorships, or simply just naive are naturally going to think of the US as being Aggressive.

I'll agree that the Iraq War 2 was idiotic and unnecessary. It should not have happened.

Iran is a danger. Due to their own stupidity. They either are building a bomb... or they are building a medical research facility and simply being stupid about keeping inspectors out. They are like a man who had his hand behind his back after being stopped by police. Regardless of if he has a cigarette, a soda bottle, or a gun in that hand, the police are going to demand he show them that hand. When he stubbornly refuses 5 or 6 times, eventually patience will loose out and the police will act to secure a possible threat. Iran is hiding its hand behind its back and refusing to show what it is holding, and soon the Police will act.

[DieChecker]

OverSword, on 05 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Are you high?  Reportedly, every Tuesday he looks at a list of potential drone targets then decides who will be killed without a trial in a foriegn soveriegn nation.  I guess some people don't see the conflict of interest between those actions and libertarian American values.

I hardly consider going to a meeting and picking drone targets to be "Highly engaged in foreign affairs". Flying drones after specific targets in nations that have specificially agreed to this is not really terribly intrusive.