"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.
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.