Non US Citizens: how would you vote?

[Vonkhan]

Non-US citizen living in teh US

I hate Biden and Palin's a joke

I like McCain and Obama ... tough call, but I'd take McCain since he's better for business

 

[Martin]

McCain, because watching the US go down the crapper is far more interesting than watching someone try and fix it and 8 more years of Bush is exactly what the doctor ordered. Plus, when he kicks the bucket we'll get the crazy ass bitch and imagine how much fun that would be.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
WTF does it matter what non-citizens think? They have NO vote, so their opinion is valueless.

Bush would be proud of you.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Martin
McCain, because watching the US go down the crapper is far more interesting than watching someone try and fix it and 8 more years of Bush is exactly what the doctor ordered. Plus, when he kicks the bucket we'll get the crazy ass bitch and imagine how much fun that would be.

If the US goes down, so does Canada.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
I would vote Obama (as would probably at least 80% of Norwegians). Obama is so much more likeable and skilled in retoric than McCain would ever dream of beeing. Obamas vice president seems like a guy with the experience Obama lacks, and he also seems to have a good track record. McCain seems somewhat ok, but the vise president candidate is just laughable/terrible/comic - pick your choice.

That is quite a telling statement. Just proves the retardedness of european attitude.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

[/thread]

http://www.marketwatch.com/new...D8851BB0C%7D&dist=hppr

NOW, /thread

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Then 'splain why the opinion of anyone who is NOT a US citizen matters in US politics...

That's an easy one. Our country heavily influences many aspects of other countries. The world isn't isolated anymore. It is quite the opposite. It flows together now and it keeps getting smaller. What we do doesn't just effect us anymore regardless of whether we want it to or not. That's why they call it a "global economy" which is only one aspect proving why the US is not isolated and why the quality of our leaders is a concern to other countries. It may not be quite as big of a concern to them as it is to us and their concerns may be different from our concerns, but they still exist and they are still important. Likewise, the leaders of many other countries effect us as well. These concerns and differences in opinion play a very large role in foreign relations which the US obviously relies heavily on.

:thumbsup:


We globalize the world economy ...

And then tell the World, ""Piss off, Wankers. If I want your opinion I'll give it to you.""

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I would vote for Mccain. Obama is not good for us Pakistanis. Perhaps worse than Bush.

please explain.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I would vote for Mccain. Obama is not good for us Terrorists. Perhaps worse than Bush.

:shocked:

During my recent trip to Pakistan, I noticed tremendous excitement about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama winning the presidency.

People seem to believe that he would be a friend of Pakistan. There is also a perception that since his middle name is Hussein, he is Muslim.

Both views are incorrect.

Barack Obama is no more Pakistan?s friend than George Bush or any other president in the past, and perhaps in the future as well. American friendship is based on American national interest, not personal preference of the man occupying the White House. Additionally, despite his Muslim middle name, Obama is a proud Christian and he has emphasised his Christian upbringing and his Christian faith on every occasion he was either asked, or he felt the need to explain it. Even his presidential website clearly elaborates that Obama is not Muslim.

Senator John McCain on the other hand doesn?t have the religious problem. Senator McCain, who is 71 years old and will be 72 in January 2009 when the new president takes over, has a different set of challenges. He is perceived as a warmonger, and as someone who is too eager and too quick to resort to the use of America?s military might, should there be a conflict involving American interest.

There is a genuine reason behind this concern about Senator McCain. John McCain?s father and grandfather were admirals in the United States Navy. McCain himself is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and he went on to become a naval aviator. McCain?s one son is in the navy and another son is in the Marine Corps. Some of his critics believe that because Senator McCain is too involved with the military due to close family and professional ties, and because he has not opposed any military action by the United States ever since McCain was elected to the Congress in 1982, he is more likely to militarily strike Iran, and even inside Pakistan if the situation continues to deteriorate according to American perspective, which runs contrary to Pakistan?s point of view.

A closer look at America?s foreign policy tells us that Americans don?t change overnight. Despite what any presidential candidate said during the campaign, American?s foreign policy is moulded slowly and cautiously. More importantly, the process of formulating a policy goes through a laborious process of discussions, meetings, dialogues and review amongst both elected officials and career professionals at the State Department, Pentagon, National Security Council and numerous other institutions. Input is solicited from retired experts, civilians and academics.

The secretary of state is generally responsible for making suggestions to the president; the decision is only made after the president has exhausted every option available to him by discussing the matter with a broad range of experts across the board. The United State Senate and House of Representatives also plays a role in advising the president.

After all that is done, the president normally asks the secretary of state for additional information or answers and consults his national security advisor before settling on a new direction for the United States. Any change, especially if it has to be approved by the Congress is not easy because it is very unlikely that the Congress would accept everything that comes from the White House. Since Congress controls the money, it can exert tremendous pressure on the president to accept its recommendations. Therefore, it is quite safe to suggest that there won?t be any major change in terms of foreign policy, regardless of who becomes the president in January 2009, especially about Pakistan.

The only change we can see is the shifting attitude towards Pakistan. Senator Obama is on record about his intentions to hit inside Pakistan, unilaterally, if he has to deal with the threat. Delivering a speech in Washington in 2007, Obama said, ?If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won?t act, we will.?

Speaking on another occasion on July 15, 2008 in Washington, Barack Obama said, ?I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy ? one that recognises that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin.? This language is neither ambiguous nor wrapped in diplomatic code. It is simple, direct and clearly lays out Obama?s plan to act unilaterally if he sees it fit to move against the terrorists. The attacks on Pakistani territory in recent weeks are a clear example of the policy that is already in place.

However, in light of all this, it is very surprising to hear Pakistan?s foreign minister insist that Pakistan won?t allow allied forces to operate inside Pakistan. American forces don?t need Pakistan?s permission to launch an air attack, and just like they have done in the past, they would strike anywhere they feel they have a high-value target, either hiding or operating. This has been clear to anyone who was paying attention to America?s message. It is time for Pakistan?s Foreign Office to recognise the reality. It is also time for the country to evaluate Pakistan?s options and Pakistan?s future role in the conflict against terrorism.

John McCain has been equally tough about terrorising the terrorists and he too won?t hold back fire if he has information about a valuable target inside Pakistan. American presidents make decisions based on the advice they receive from the experts and there is virtually no difference between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, especially in dealing with terrorists that these two candidates believe are hiding inside Pakistan?s tribal areas. If we still believe that there is going to be any change, and by change if we expect to be left alone by Washington, we are being naïve.

Nothing is going to change and if anything, Washington is going to demand more and more from Islamabad in the coming days. You can count on it.

I just realize you look at the people; not what they do before making your decisions. You have been criticizing Bush because he is a Republican and praising Obama because he is a Democratic even though he has openly condoned war against another sovereign country.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
if anything, Washington is going to demand more and more from Islamabad in the coming days. You can count on it.

He's right.

TGB, please address my questions at the end of this thread here.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
if anything, Washington is going to demand more and more from Islamabad in the coming days. You can count on it.

He's right.

TGB, please address my questions at the end of this thread here.

And I think you can count of a more confrontationist approach from us too. That may range from anywhere between cutting of your supplies and shooting down your jets.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: BoomerD
WTF does it matter what non-citizens think? They have NO vote, so their opinion is valueless.

The irony in this post just blew my mind!

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoomerD
WTF does it matter what non-citizens think? They have NO vote, so their opinion is valueless.

Now that's a brilliant way to think of the situation. Is that really what you believe is the right way to think about such a matter? And I thought Palin's foreign relation and policy experience was awful...

Then 'splain why the opinion of anyone who is NOT a US citizen matters in US politics...

I don't give a rat's ass who Canada or Mexico elects in their political offices. Sure, in one way or another it might affect things in the US, but it's NOT MY COUNTRY, my opinion doesn't matter.

Should we here in the US take opinion polls from other countries to see who THEY think we should elect?


Fuck that.

I am here in the US, and I wanted to hear other views. The leadership of the US can impact the rest of the world, which in turn affects the US. There is value in gathering the opinions of those who can't vote; always have as much information as possible when you make a decision.

Besides, I find it interesting.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: BoomerD
WTF does it matter what non-citizens think? They have NO vote, so their opinion is valueless.

Bush would be proud of you.

ROFL! yeah...sure. Ah kin tale yoo don pay much tention on these hyar bords. I ar KNOT a Reepulbikin...ain't ne'er bin won, dout Ah'l e'r bee won.

Sounds like youse folks think we should maybe advertise for advice:
"Oh gee, can you furrin countrees halp us por dum "merikans chooze ar noo leeder?"

(gotta admit, after 2 Bush terms of office, maybe that'd be a good idea! 51% of this country sure fucked things up the last 2 times!) 😀

More seriously, Americans have to choose their president from (IMO) a VERY poor list of candidaes.
Why should we allow the opinions of those who are not citizens to affect or bias our choices?
Those who are resident non-citizens, (legal aliens) may have valid opinions, since the final outcome will directly impact them, but folks who live in other countries, while you may have an opinion, it's not valid, since it USUALLY doesn't impact you directly.
Indirectly, perhaps, but not generally in a direct manner. (unless of course, you're an Iraqi or Afghani...or ???)

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
I would vote Obama (as would probably at least 80% of Norwegians). Obama is so much more likeable and skilled in retoric than McCain would ever dream of beeing. Obamas vice president seems like a guy with the experience Obama lacks, and he also seems to have a good track record. McCain seems somewhat ok, but the vise president candidate is just laughable/terrible/comic - pick your choice.

That is quite a telling statement. Just proves the retardedness of european attitude.

I don't claim to represent "European attitude", we are much more different then americans with many languages, countries and cultures. And we don't follow american politics quite as closely as you do. There is however no doubt that Obama is a much more "european" poitician than McCain is imho.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
More seriously, Americans have to choose their president from (IMO) a VERY poor list of candidaes.
Why should we allow the opinions of those who are not citizens to affect or bias our choices?
Those who are resident non-citizens, (legal aliens) may have valid opinions, since the final outcome will directly impact them, but folks who live in other countries, while you may have an opinion, it's not valid, since it USUALLY doesn't impact you directly.
Indirectly, perhaps, but not generally in a direct manner. (unless of course, you're an Iraqi or Afghani...or ???)

Its affects us in many ways. We are also participating in the war in Afghanistan, we have Russian nuclear bombers flying along our cost and the american foreign policy will decide how this evolves. American economic policy is also deciding how our stock markets fare, and we have hundreds of billions of dollars invested in american stock markets and bonds (from or pension fund). American policy on energy will help decide how much the price of our oil will be, and amricas lack of policy on global warming will partly affect how much our temperature will rise. To mention a few points.

Jostein in Norway