The world wants Obama to win the US election.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by super600 (30954 posts) -

I found an article talking about the effects a Romney win would have on America and the World.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/nov/02/world-wants-obama-win-us-election

Summary of the article

The articlwe pretty much talks about the potential effects of a Romney win could have on the World and the US and why people in other places of the wqorld want Obama to win.

Good excerpt from article

While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers, the same devotion to higher military spending, the same belief that tax cuts for the rich are the solution to every economic problem, and the same fuzzy budget maths.


I kinda like romney, but I don't like his flip-flopping or the people in his party.Can't wait for the election on Tuesday anyway.



#2 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

bbcworldpoll-obama2012.gif?w=640

#3 Posted by Obviously_Right (5319 posts) -

Obama blew it.

#4 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

The only significant thing to take from that article is this:

"The irony again lost on Romney is that other countries are accusing the US of currency manipulation. After all, one of the main benefits of the Federal Reserve's policy of "quantitative easing" perhaps the only channel with a significant effect on the real economy derives from the depreciation of the US dollar."

Yet, the Federal Reserve is already manipulating the currency while Obama is in office so it really makes no difference which president we have.

#5 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

bbcworldpoll-obama2012.gif?w=640

Person0
Can you blame them? Thousands of citizens in their country have been murdered by drone strikes under the Obama administration. Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.
#6 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

Vuurk

Can you blame them? Thousands of citizens in their country have been murdered by drone strikes under the Obama administration. Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.

Its not like romney is going to stop them

#7 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -
"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"
#8 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

Too bad for the world, because Romney is the next President.

#9 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

Person0

Can you blame them? Thousands of citizens in their country have been murdered by drone strikes under the Obama administration. Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.

Its not like romney is going to stop them

I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?
#10 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"

hah nice
#11 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Can you blame them? Thousands of citizens in their country have been murdered by drone strikes under the Obama administration. Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate. Vuurk

Its not like romney is going to stop them

I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

Because the Republicans have shown that they are usually more Pro-War then the Democrats. So if anything it will probably be worse for Pakistan if Romney won/
#12 Posted by super600 (30954 posts) -

"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"MrPraline

In terms of economic yes, but in terms of foreign policy a tiny bit.

#13 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4729 posts) -

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Can you blame them? Thousands of citizens in their country have been murdered by drone strikes under the Obama administration. Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate. Vuurk

Its not like romney is going to stop them

I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

If I was a citizen of Pakistan, I'd refuse to support either of them considering they BOTH want to drone strike my country. I guess I'd choose Obama as at least he doesn't want more drones.

#14 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"super600

In terms of economic yes, but in terms of foreign policy a tiny bit.

Other way around I'd say. On foreign policy, and that's the kind of the thing "the world" cares about, they are absolutely the same. Barry has done a good job of turning Dubya's mess up a notch or two. A republican's wet dream in faux liberal clothing. Drone strikes. War mongering. Assassination of an American citizen without a trial. Indefinite detainment. Guantanom bay. Patriot act. Just like Bush would've done. Just like Mitt will do. People are always told that problems should be dealt with at the root. That doesn't mean changing the actor. You replace the director.
#15 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -
[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Its not like romney is going to stop them

Person0
I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

Because the Republicans have shown that they are usually more Pro-War then the Democrats.

That's debatable.
#16 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

I know plenty of people that wish Ron Paul was still running.

#17 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Its not like romney is going to stop them

WiiCubeM1

I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

If I was a citizen of Pakistan, I'd refuse to support either of them considering they BOTH want to drone strike my country. I guess I'd choose Obama as at least he doesn't want more drones.

If people in the ME really support Barry that's insane and shows how powerful the media agitprop machine is. He's been a massive f*cking villain to them. Drones and drones and drones and death. But thank god he's not a Republican! Let's support him! Can I please cry
#18 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"super600

In terms of economic yes, but in terms of foreign policy a tiny bit.

I would posit that they are more similar on foreign policy than economic policy. The debate p. much showed that the primary difference is that Romney would say the same things that Obama says louder, and, allegedly, sooner.

#19 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Its not like romney is going to stop them

WiiCubeM1

I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

If I was a citizen of Pakistan, I'd refuse to support either of them considering they BOTH want to drone strike my country. I guess I'd choose Obama as at least he doesn't want more drones.

LOL. When did Obama say he didn't want more drones?!?! I need to see a link of this. Last I had heard he was the one who has murdered thousands of citizens in Pakistan via drone strikes. Come on mate, don't play the bias game.
#20 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -

I know plenty of people that wish Ron Paul was still running.

sexyweapons
mm
#21 Posted by Obviously_Right (5319 posts) -

I know plenty of people that wish Ron Paul was still running.

sexyweapons

:lol: at them.

#22 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

I know plenty of people that wish Ron Paul was still running.

Obviously_Right

:lol: at them.

:lol: at you.
#23 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -
[QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

bbcworldpoll-obama2012.gif?w=640

Vuurk
Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.

or Ron Paul
#24 Posted by super600 (30954 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]"While Bush is not on the ballot, Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers" hm "Obama has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration's policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers"coolbeans90

In terms of economic yes, but in terms of foreign policy a tiny bit.

I would posit that they are more similar on foreign policy than economic policy. The debate p. much showed that the primary difference is that Romney would say the same things that Obama says louder, and, allegedly, sooner.

They are different in terms of economic policy which was what I meant to say.

#25 Posted by Aljosa23 (25669 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

bbcworldpoll-obama2012.gif?w=640

sexyweapons

Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.

or Ron Paul

LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

#26 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="super600"]

In terms of economic yes, but in terms of foreign policy a tiny bit.

super600

I would posit that they are more similar on foreign policy than economic policy. The debate p. much showed that the primary difference is that Romney would say the same things that Obama says louder, and, allegedly, sooner.

They are different in terms of economic policy which was what I meant to say.

dafuq?
#27 Posted by JML897 (33131 posts) -

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

bbcworldpoll-obama2012.gif?w=640

Vuurk

I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate.

Based on the fact that most of those countries have it at like 40% - 10%, I'm guessing that one did.

#28 Posted by Big_Pecks (5542 posts) -

I love how every country on the graph is overwhelmingly for Obama, except for Pakistan, and the dead-locked US. Hmm.

#29 Posted by super600 (30954 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I would posit that they are more similar on foreign policy than economic policy. The debate p. much showed that the primary difference is that Romney would say the same things that Obama says louder, and, allegedly, sooner.

Vuurk

They are different in terms of economic policy which was what I meant to say.

dafuq?

Romney wants higher miltary spending,tax cuts for the rich and poor(maybe), less government control that is structured and wants to cut things like FEMA.Obama wants bigger government,may cut spending,less miltary spending etc.

#30 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate. Aljosa23

or Ron Paul

LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

Yeah, when Ron Paul got 36% of the vote in Maine, those were all internet teenagers.
#31 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Also, I think a much more interesting graph would be one that includes an option for neither candidate. Aljosa23

or Ron Paul

LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

You'd be surprised.
#32 Posted by Aljosa23 (25669 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"] or Ron PaulLaihendi

LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

Yeah, when Ron Paul got 36% of the vote in Maine, those were all internet teenagers.

Sweet, glad you agree with me.

#33 Posted by JML897 (33131 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"] or Ron PaulLaihendi

LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

Yeah, when Ron Paul got 36% of the vote in Maine, those were all internet teenagers.

He received 2,200 votes in Maine at the caucus.:|

#34 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]LOL at you thinking anyone but internet teenagers know who Ron Paul is.

JML897

Yeah, when Ron Paul got 36% of the vote in Maine, those were all internet teenagers.

He received 2,200 votes in Maine at the caucus.:|

It was only ~100 less than Romney though.

And he got 57,000 votes in New Hampshire so hah.

#35 Posted by JML897 (33131 posts) -

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yeah, when Ron Paul got 36% of the vote in Maine, those were all internet teenagers.Laihendi

He received 2,200 votes in Maine at the caucus.:|

It was only ~100 less than Romney though.

When you have to cite a Republican caucus held back in February that was held in a tiny liberal state as proof of your candidate being relevant, I think that's a pretty good sign of your candidate being mostly irrelevant.

#39 Posted by SteverXIII (3829 posts) -
Barry obama 2012
#41 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

Because the Republicans have shown that they are usually more Pro-War then the Democrats.

That's debatable.

It is loss/loss either way for most of the World. :P
#42 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

Weird, they are all communist/socialists and they want Obummer to win.

#43 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="JML897"]

He received 2,200 votes in Maine at the caucus.:|

JML897

It was only ~100 less than Romney though.

When you have to cite a Republican caucus held back in February that was held in a tiny liberal state as proof of your candidate being relevant, I think that's a pretty good sign of your candidate being mostly irrelevant.

2,000,000 votes total bruh. Ron Paul got more 2nd place finishes than Santorum and Gingrich combined.
#44 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country?

Because the Republicans have shown that they are usually more Pro-War then the Democrats.

That's debatable.

It is loss/loss either way for most of the World. :P
#46 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

Weird and a little suspicious that communistic/socialistic countries want Obummer to win.

#47 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10311 posts) -
I dont want to live on this planet anymore....
#48 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10311 posts) -
I dont want to live on this planet anymore....