The world wants Obama to win the US election.

The more I read this forum, the more convinced I become that the legal voting age should be raised to 30.

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country? Vuurk

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.

Romney is a political clone of Bush, he wants to increase defense spending, and considering his support of drone strikes, I think we'd just see MORE during his term, don't you think? This isn't bias, this is common sense, a rare commodity this election.

Obama should be leading by double digits in the polls. Having Romney even close to winning, shows how bad the Obama campaign is running. A billionaire who has never paid more then 13% in taxes could win the 2012 president election????

roulettethedog

Obama is projected to win 303 electoral votes and is rising.

Despite what the media is trying to portray (makes good ratings I guess) Romney is only close in the popular vote, the electoral makeup says a different story.

I have faith in the internet.

http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/mitt%20romney

I have faith in the internet.

http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/mitt%20romney

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

Its not like romney is going to stop them

Person0

The current administration has carried out more drone attacks then the previous one. I'm not saying that the Republicans are any better, but the notion that they are "pro-war" to a greater extent is rubbish.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I agree, but why would they support the incumbent consider what he has done to their country? Socijalisticka

The current administration has carried out more drone attacks then the previous one. I'm not saying that the Republicans are any better, but the notion that they are "pro-war" to a greater extent is rubbish.

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/Person0

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson. Do you know what they all have in common? They are all Democrats that sent men to war during the 20th Century. Now you can add Obama (he is still sending men to war) to that list of Democrats who have sent men to war in the last 100 years.

[QUOTE="Person0"]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/WhiteKnight77

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson. Do you know what they all have in common? They are all Democrats that sent men to war during the 20th Century. Now you can add Obama (he is still sending men to war) to that list of Democrats who have sent men to war in the last 100 years.

Obama should be leading by double digits in the polls. Having Romney even close to winning, shows how bad the Obama campaign is running. A billionaire who has never paid more then 13% in taxes could win the 2012 president election????

roulettethedog

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] 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/Person0

The current administration has carried out more drone attacks then the previous one. I'm not saying that the Republicans are any better, but the notion that they are "pro-war" to a greater extent is rubbish.

>implying Obama wouldn't have gotten into those wars

Circumstances are important. Afghanistan was p. much a no-brainer regardless of party. Maybe Obama would not have gone into Iraq, maybe he would have, but Clinton made it seem p. damn inevitable.

Moreover, when it came time to talking policy, umm, Romney parroted Obama's stances, saying that Iran can't have nukes, but invasion is a "last resort." He just says it louder, I guess.

Surprisingly it's very 50/50 here in the US, I feel as if we're going to be looking at another very close election this year.

Obama does seem to be winning Ohio, and the Electoral College as well.

Obama should be leading by double digits in the polls. Having Romney even close to winning, shows how bad the Obama campaign is running. A billionaire who has never paid more then 13% in taxes could win the 2012 president election????

roulettethedog

Republicans pretty much know how to fabricate the truth.Their candidate is about as weak as Mccain in terms of policy, but he isn't a bad person.The only reason he is close to beating obama in the first place is because the republicans are trying to blame the economy on Obama's policies when in reality their plan to fix the economy is unrealistic compared to Obama's, but sadly the voters don't recognize that.

[QUOTE="Person0"]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/WhiteKnight77

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson. Do you know what they all have in common? They are all Democrats that sent men to war during the 20th Century.

I'll give you those last three, but the first two on that list hardly seemed like warhawks. Technically you're right that they sent men to war but FDR in particular only did so after we were attacked in the first place. Also Woodrow Wilson-era Democrats and the modern Democratic Party are pretty damn different.

Of all the factors regarding who should be president, who other countries think should be president is one of the least relevant.

Maybe Obama would not have gone into Iraq, maybe he would have, but Clinton made it seem p. damn inevitable.coolbeans90

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

Lol; feel sorry for Pakistan. They just want to bring in any other person than Obama.

Dear Pakistan,

If you thought Obama was bad, wait till you get a load of neo-conservatism mixed with pseudo-patriotism on steroids.

[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. TopTierHustler

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.

Vuurk

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[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. BossPerson

Keep in mind whom you are arguing with. I really wouldn't bother.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[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. BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They're killing terrorists with those derp.

TopTierHustler

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They're killing terrorists with those derp.

coolbeans90

Keep in mind whom you are arguing with. I really wouldn't bother.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They're killing terrorists with those derp.

TopTierHustler

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]except for all the times they don't http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deathsTopTierHustler

Keep in mind whom you are arguing with. I really wouldn't bother.

Yeah, I really am.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]except for all the times they don't http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deathsAljosa23

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They're killing terrorists with those derp.

TopTierHustler

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]except for all the times they don't http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deathsBossPerson

I was thinking since this tech is only like 3 years old, and since in the course of human history, this is the first time humans can fight in combat, without actually being there, and I would much rather a robot have the potential to die than our soilder. and given the high inaccuraty, yeah, I'd say there's room for improvement, and given how science has been making strides in recent yeaqrs in robotics, fight and computers, yes I do expect the technology to get much much better. You don't get better without actual field tests though.

There's a reason why he's called toptiertroll l4dak47

toptiertroll l4dak47

toptierl4dak47

Obama doesn't really need to start any more formal wars with the sh*tload of drone attacks he's responsible for. Don't get it twisted. He has enough blood on his hands to drown a small galaxy.MrPraline

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

Person0

I'd be interested in data from Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, among all the other developed nations missing from the graph, but I guess the graph paints a good enough picture?:P

I have to say though, the fact Chinese people would be overwhelmingly for Obama may be due to many of them don't know who Romney is, and also, if the this is Chinese choosing their own president, they'd likely to vote Romney, their values are more in line with the republicans, from what I've seen anyway.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]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/JML897

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson. Do you know what they all have in common? They are all Democrats that sent men to war during the 20th Century.

I'll give you those last three, but the first two on that list hardly seemed like warhawks. Technically you're right that they sent men to war but FDR in particular only did so after we were attacked in the first place. Also Woodrow Wilson-era Democrats and the modern Democratic Party are pretty damn different.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson. Do you know what they all have in common? They are all Democrats that sent men to war during the 20th Century.

Rhazakna

I'll give you those last three, but the first two on that list hardly seemed like warhawks. Technically you're right that they sent men to war but FDR in particular only did so after we were attacked in the first place. Also Woodrow Wilson-era Democrats and the modern Democratic Party are pretty damn different.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="JML897"]

I'll give you those last three, but the first two on that list hardly seemed like warhawks. Technically you're right that they sent men to war but FDR in particular only did so after we were attacked in the first place. Also Woodrow Wilson-era Democrats and the modern Democratic Party are pretty damn different.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] WTF are you talking about, FDR and Wilson weren't hawks? FDR was very pro-war, and it was Wilson who wanted to "make the world safe for Democracy" by sending Americans to die in European trenches. Democrats have never really been critics of the warfare state, and many have been instrumental in expanding it.Rhazakna

Ah yes I'd forgotten he supplied arms to the allies before entering the war. Forgive me it's been over 6 years since I last studied American history.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Maybe Obama would not have gone into Iraq, maybe he would have, but Clinton made it seem p. damn inevitable.Rapporteur

He referred to it as "dumb" and "rash" as a senator in 2002. As president, in 2011 after the complete withdrawal, he was asked again whether or not he still thought that Iraq was a dumb war - to which he responded that "history will judge." He has also said: "Because, you know, what's happened over the last several years has linked the United States and Iraq in a way that is potentially powerful and could end up benefiting not only America and Iraq but also the entire region and the entire world."

As others were saying the election here isn't as close as it is being portrayed. The media loves the run up to the election because it is very good for ratings. The country is deeply divided along party lines and Obama is going to win enough "liberalish" states to stay president. That being said, the Republicans are going to keep control of the House of Representatives throughout the rest of his presidency at this point. I think its laughable that his entire second term plan so far is completely hindering on the faint hope the the Republicans in the house will start to break rank. These people are being sent to congress from conservative districts with the goal of hindering his policies. Anyone who breaks rank is going to find themself voted out pretty quickily in the current political climate.

In short: Obama will win and accomplish nothing in the next four years.

He referred to it as "dumb" and "rash" as a senator in 2002. As president, in 2011 after the complete withdrawal, he was asked again whether or not he still thought that Iraq was a dumb war - to which he responded that "history will judge." He has also said: "Because, you know, what's happened over the last several years has linked the United States and Iraq in a way that is potentially powerful and could end up benefiting not only America and Iraq but also the entire region and the entire world."coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]He referred to it as "dumb" and "rash" as a senator in 2002. As president, in 2011 after the complete withdrawal, he was asked again whether or not he still thought that Iraq was a dumb war - to which he responded that "history will judge." He has also said: "Because, you know, what's happened over the last several years has linked the United States and Iraq in a way that is potentially powerful and could end up benefiting not only America and Iraq but also the entire region and the entire world."Rapporteur

I wonder why Germany and Poland are so pro-Romney relative to other European nations, and France so anti-Romney.

As others were saying the election here isn't as close as it is being portrayed. The media loves the run up to the election because it is very good for ratings. The country is deeply divided along party lines and Obama is going to win enough "liberalish" states to stay president. That being said, the Republicans are going to keep control of the House of Representatives throughout the rest of his presidency at this point. I think its laughable that his entire second term plan so far is completely hindering on the faint hope the the Republicans in the house will start to break rank. These people are being sent to congress from conservative districts with the goal of hindering his policies. Anyone who breaks rank is going to find themself voted out pretty quickily in the current political climate.

In short: Obama will win and accomplish nothing in the next four years.

UnknownSniper65

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

Person0

Obama blew it.

Obviously_Right

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Pakistan wants Romney to win!

The-Apostle

Obama blew it.

Obviously_Right