More specifically vote for Obama. For the love of America don't let the Republicans screw us all. Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it.
1 global financial crisis. 2 disastrous wars. 1 ruined economy.
> Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist
As a fellow international HN'er who literally do understand this (and, by the way, don't recall having nominated you to speak on my behalf), let me explain this to you, very slowly:
The republican party exists because roughly half of the american population keeps voting for its candidates.
"Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it."
It's a grave mistake to think that all non-US persons believe that Obama would be the best president, or that the Republican party is an aberration.
Confluence might have been hit with an attack of hyperbole, but a recent BBC poll[1] somewhat corroborates his assertion: An average of 50% favoured Mr Obama, with 9% for Mr Romney, in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries.
I wonder how many of those people could name a single policy of either party nevermind demonstrating that their choice is at all informed by anything other than what each person looks like or which pop stars support them.
I think you would be very surprised. As a non-US citizen i know almost as much about US politics as my own country's. People around the world have an interest in US politics, it is nothing like asking someone about Japanese or German politics. My guess is that many countries have a proportion of informed people that is not massively far off the US.
If you watch Newsnight or read a broadsheet or similar then you'll probably be well informed; if not then your preference is probably based on your music taste or the media coverage of Romney's underwear style.
To be very surprised then the levels of knowledge would suggest we might get a properly informed vote here sometime.
Can't tell about how much everyone reads, but for example all major newspapers in germany do prominently cover that election weeks ahead with lots of information and comparisons of the candidates. This election is watched a lot in europe. As another example - one of the cinemas in my town is reserved tonight for a election night where they show CNN International live from midnight up to 6am in the morning.
I am pretty sure if you did the poll in Pakistan, they would like us to pick someone else. The double drone hit with the second designed to kill civilian rescue workers is particularly bad.
I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan wasn't harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that continue to destabilize the region then America wouldn't have to. Pakistan has to get their act together.
So: When a republican president goes to war in Afghanistan that at the time was "harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists" that were successfully targeting the US, it's "disastrous". When a democratic president bombs civilians on a day-to-day basis for the same reason (although the threat to the US is much less direct), it's really the fault of the other country on the receiving end.
Whilst I agree in part to the point you make, that Pakistan should be dealing with terrorists that use it as a safe haven.
I can not agree with your sentiment that because Pakistan does not, America therefore has a right to fly drones into its land to indiscriminately kill.
I understand that it's not likely to be intentionally indiscriminate, however when the civilian casualty rate is so high it sure does seem indiscriminate.
Not necessarily the man himself, but the whole republican party is pretty toxic. It seems to be a mixture of 'screw the weak' and 'Jesus is Lord' with a dash of just plain nuts. This is how it appears to folks overseas anyway.
When Bush was re-elected, for instance, it was genuinely baffling. Not that there was anything good about Kerry, but... seriously? That guy again? And since then the republicans just seem to have become more and more caricatured. The whole Sarah Palin thing would have been funny if we weren't talking about the upper echelons of politics in America.
I am from the UK and literally cannot understand why anyone would want 4 more years of the same. Wars waged, promises broken, drone strikes, trillions and trillions spent, plunging the country further and further into debt.
Not to mention removal of more freedom and civil liberties.
> After the September 11 attacks on New York, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and a small international coalition invaded Afghanistan, the location of Osama Bin Laden, who planned the New York attacks. In 2003, Bush then launched the invasion of Iraq, searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction, which he described as being part of the War on Terrorism.
> The Bush Administration asserted both a right and the intention to wage preemptive war, or preventive war. This became the basis for the Bush Doctrine which weakened the unprecedented levels of international and domestic support for the United States which had followed the September 11 attacks.
> Bush Administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities would eventually become a major point of criticism for the president.
I don't like to get political in this forum, but you need to get a grip. It isn't an either/or choice. Most ballots have several choices for president, including Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional parties (with apologies to other parties I've omitted). Your naive plea here plays a small part in propogating the two-party lie that is a major source of tyranny in the United States.
It doesn't decide the president - but it influences which positions the 2 major parties have to cover. Lets say for example democrats are losing because they lost massively votes to the green party - then in the next race they will certainly consider how to get those votes back and might have a greener agenda.
Your lack of understanding suggests inadequate sources of information. Similarly, an older version of yourself might have wondered how Reagan won 49 states when he was obviously a nuclear madman.
I don't think this thread will serve anyone well by devolving into a political argument.
Put aside the fact that pretty much the entire U.S. political spectrum and most of the European one supported the first war, a majority of the former (including the 2004 Democratic candidate for President) supported the second...
Can you please explain in brief how George W. Bush was instrumental in causing a global financial meltdown? Which bills from the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2007 did he veto that would have stopped it?
1 global financial crisis. 2 disastrous wars. 1 ruined economy.
Don't screw it up a second time.