Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How would Brits vote in the election ?

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Hi guys just a thought, of course we don't suffer/benefit directly by your election results on a personal level but this I found interesting.
If brits were to vote in your elections we would Obama by ratio of 10:1. So guess his foreign policy worked. At least on us
LINK




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 

The perception of a US President by people outside of the States is usually not grounded in that Presidents political prowess, or domestic, and international achievements. It is more likely to be formed based on how well they speak, and how much charisma they are able to portray. So if like JFK for example they have enough of the showman about them, and are able to speak eloquently they will most likely be popular outside of the US regardless of their popularity in the US.
edit on 4-11-2012 by hotel1 because: their



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
People in the UK would overwhelmingly favour Obama as they see him as less likely to drag us into another war at the first opportunity.

That and Rommney has a whiff of the 'Religious loon' about him.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by cody599
 

The perception of a US President by people outside of the States is usually not grounded in that Presidents political prowess, or domestic, and international achievements. It is more likely to be formed based on how well they speak, and how much charisma they are able to portray. So if like JFK for example they have enough of the showman about them, and are able to speak eloquently they will most likely be popular outside of the US regardless of their popularity in the US.
edit on 4-11-2012 by hotel1 because: their


Whether you're living their or not I think most who vote, vote based on how the politician is portrayed - Not their actual policies.

Also our (UK) media have not been nice about Romney - And his comments on how we ran the Olympics didn't go down well with the public, so many think Romney's an ass already, hence the popular vote for Obama.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


I remember before Obama was selected as candidate for the previous election feeling really excited at the prospect of an "outsider" becoming leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth.

He struck me as being someone who was prepared to do things differently and offered to change the place of America in the world - rather than being the aggressor, it would become the peacemaker.

I remember hearing a story of how he tried to go to the Democratic Party Conference in 2000 but couldn't as he didn't have a ticket. Not sure how true this is but it reflected that he wasn't one of the old guard and would approach the Presidency with the expectation of the "average Joe" - that there was much wrong with how government worked and that there would be no compromise in making those changes.


You can't even begin to imagine how disappointed I am in the man. He has achieved nothing - even Guantanamo Bay, which he promised to close is still there.

I'm not keen on Romney but think that the US people deserve a decisive and transparent leader, one where you know exactly what you're getting.

So, whilst my natural affiliation would be with Obama, I couldn't and wouldn't vote for him if i was a US citizen, I'd want him out of office which would leave only one choice.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
People in the UK would overwhelmingly favour Obama as they see him as less likely to drag us into another war at the first opportunity.

That and Rommney has a whiff of the 'Religious loon' about him.


I think justwokeup hit the nail on the head .
Obama for the win , four more relatively peaceful years



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
The only one I would of voted for would of been Ron Paul

It does not matter who is elected anyway, the whole political system is a farce, its all window dressing, the policies implemented have nothing to do with election promises rather the will be following the instructions of their corporate masters, makes no difference whether its the USA or the UK, we get stuffed either way



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex

Originally posted by justwokeup
People in the UK would overwhelmingly favour Obama as they see him as less likely to drag us into another war at the first opportunity.

That and Rommney has a whiff of the 'Religious loon' about him.


I think justwokeup hit the nail on the head .
Obama for the win , four more relatively peaceful years


...and continuiation of the economic decline of western civilisation.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
The only one I would of voted for would of been Ron Paul

It does not matter who is elected anyway, the whole political system is a farce, its all window dressing, the policies implemented have nothing to do with election promises rather the will be following the instructions of their corporate masters, makes no difference whether its the USA or the UK, we get stuffed either way


This is where Obama was meant to be different, but he wasn't.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 


He's achieved nothing?


Ended war in iraq?
Repealed Don't ask Don't tell, allowing gays to openly serve in the military
Passed Health care reform
Gave the go ahead for the mission to kill Bin Laden
Reversed Bush torture policies
Passed the economic stimulus which saved the auto industry and saved the U.S. Economy from TOTAL collapse
Passed Credit card reform

All of this while dealing with an obstructionist republican controlled senate.

Seems like you're suffering from a SEVERE case of Romnesia, perhaps you should take advantage of your NHS and pay the doctor a visit



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 





...and continuiation of the economic decline of western civilisation.


Look around , that's happening around the western world .... is Obama to blame for the failings in the western democratic political system ?

Romney smells like another Bush to me , just as gaff prone but slightly better educated and no less dangerous .



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by citizenx1
 


He's achieved nothing?


Ended war in iraq?
Repealed Don't ask Don't tell, allowing gays to openly serve in the military
Passed Health care reform
Gave the go ahead for the mission to kill Bin Laden
Reversed Bush torture policies
Passed the economic stimulus which saved the auto industry and saved the U.S. Economy from TOTAL collapse
Passed Credit card reform

All of this while dealing with an obstructionist republican controlled senate.

Seems like you're suffering from a SEVERE case of Romnesia, perhaps you should take advantage of your NHS and pay the doctor a visit


Speaking from a "foreign" perspective, his internal actions are not really my concern. Whilst they appear to be positive, they're also fairly small changes given the promise of "Yes we can".

The war in Iraq was always going to "end" around the time it did - there was no more will for it globally or within Iraq. Can't really claim that as an Obama action/achievement.

Killing Bin Laden was a no brainer when he was given the opportunity to do so. Pretty sure any other President would have gone with it too. The real achievement is the work of the intelligence services in finding Bin Laden, again, not something that can be claimed as an Obama victory.

As for the economic stimulus, did it really prevent it or has it simply delayed the inevitable? Hardly a day goes by where we aren't presented with images of the economic decline of US towns and cities. Nothing has been done to prevent China overtaking the US as the major economic power of the 21st Century - trouble is just being stored up for another day.

Not convinced by his reversal of Bush's torture policies given that Guatanamo Bay remains open and is far easier to scrutinise. Even then, its a small change and was also a no-brainer.

No, i'm not convinced by Obama - he's very media savvy but has not made an impact globally. He has not reformed government as was promised in his previous campaign.

Ultimately, it isn't my choice but this is very much my considered opinion - the man is a let-down.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by citizenx1
 





...and continuiation of the economic decline of western civilisation.


Look around , that's happening around the western world .... is Obama to blame for the failings in the western democratic political system ?

Romney smells like another Bush to me , just as gaff prone but slightly better educated and no less dangerous .


No, he's not to blame but he is responsible for doing nothing to change how the US works and using his extreme influence with other western nations to enact change.

He's skirted the big issues.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
US politics is a world away from politics in the UK. Most Britons would be shocked and annoyed at the vast sums rolled into the political campaigning and the constant negativity of the said. Voting for an individual like this is not what the UK political process is about as the Prime Minister is not voted for by the public.

Obama is well regarded mainly because he’s perceived as being to the left of US politics. However, being to the left in the US is still somewhat to the right of the politics in the UK and the rest of Europe.

elections.nytimes.com...

The money thrown into the presidential campaign is an affront and ensures that it is always a two horse race and to the exclusion of other less partisan possible. This is a flaw of the US political system, IMHO. In the UK there is uproar if more than a tenner is spent on campaigning.

Edit 1 = Edit to add that Obama would not last two minutes in Prime Minister's question time! That's the difference in politics.
Edit 2 = Edit to add this PMQT example, can you imagine the US President being forced to face this? www.youtube.com...

Regards
edit on 4/11/2012 by paraphi because: editby]
edit on 4/11/2012 by paraphi because: for above reason given
extra DIV



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


In Australia Obama would win by a ratio of 7 to 1.

Interestingly the only country were Obama would lose is Pakistan, which is currently suffering drone attacks.

Source: Rest Of The World Favours Obama



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
US politics is a world away from politics in the UK. Most Britons would be shocked and annoyed at the vast sums rolled into the political campaigning and the constant negativity of the said. Voting for an individual like this is not what the UK political process is about as the Prime Minister is not voted for by the public.


Not directly but that is exactly what general elections come down to.


Obama is well regarded mainly because he’s perceived as being to the left of US politics. However, being to the left in the US is still somewhat to the right of the politics in the UK and the rest of Europe.

elections.nytimes.com...

The money thrown into the presidential campaign is an affront and ensures that it is always a two horse race and to the exclusion of other less partisan possible. This is a flaw of the US political system, IMHO. In the UK there is uproar if more than a tenner is spent on campaigning.

Regards
edit on 4/11/2012 by paraphi because: Edit to add that Obama would not last two minutes in Prime Minister's question time! That's the difference in politics.


Agree with the rest.
edit on 4-11-2012 by citizenx1 because: fixed quote tags



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I wouldn't vote in such a sham election. Buying your way into power and having such a limited choice of candidates. They're meaningless puppet shows and you never see the puppet master, and the only difference is the colour of the skin...white banker stooge or black banker stooge. Not that the ones over here are much better.

If pushed at gunpoint I'd vote Johnson. Neither 'Kenyan progressive Muslim socialist' nor 'sacred underpant religious flip flopping nutter' really do it for me.
edit on 4-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The only person I'll ever vote for is the person willing to remove the central banks, take the power away from the rich, and redistribute the wealth fairly.

If they wont do that then I aint voting!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
voting implies that we have choice when in reality your voting for candidates already chosen for you

in short they win either way ...



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
It's like choosing Pepsi or Cola, Disney or Warner Brothers. Is there really that much in it? Honestly? They're both to the right of my own politics and so are going to perpetuate the biggest threat to the Western World (neoliberalism) no matter who gets in. Foreign policy is perhaps the (next) most important thing to a non-American. How many more conflicts are the military-industrial complex going to try and stir up? How much do they want to perpetuate this myth of a 'special relationship' as a means to turn Britain into Airstrip One (with a side order of fries)?

All that said, with a gun against my head, I'd vote Obama just to piss off the racists.

I'm currently listening to an American (Republican) on the radio reporting on the election who is saying the Republican party has been taken over by Democrats over the last 30 years.






top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join