I've never worried much about what the rest of the world thinks about our elections. I don't waste my time thinking about elections in other countries. They know we have a presidential election every 4 years. If they don't like who we elect, they can wait 4 years.
Can I break it to you gently?
The world is no longer (if it ever was) the kind of place where it is prudent (or even possible) for the United States to act as if the views of people in other countries had no effect on its ability to safeguard its most important interests, whether economic or military.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I've never worried much about what the rest of the world thinks about our elections. I don't waste my time thinking about elections in other countries. They know we have a presidential election every 4 years. If they don't like who we elect, they can wait 4 years.
Can I break it to you gently?
The world is no longer (if it ever was) the kind of place where it is prudent (or even possible) for the United States to act as if the views of people in other countries had no effect on its ability to safeguard its most important interests, whether economic or military.
Of course we need to act prudently in foreign affairs, but I don't think we need to be concerned who the leaders of other countries want as President of the US. Foreign leaders are not concerned about the well being of the US. They are focused on the well being of their own country, as they should be. They want a US President whose policies are beneficial to their country. That may or may not be in the best interest of the US. When I vote for President, I don't consider the opinions of Hugo Chavez, David Cameron, or Vladamir Putin to be relevant.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
I've never worried much about what the rest of the world thinks about our elections. I don't waste my time thinking about elections in other countries. They know we have a presidential election every 4 years. If they don't like who we elect, they can wait 4 years.
Can I break it to you gently?
The world is no longer (if it ever was) the kind of place where it is prudent (or even possible) for the United States to act as if the views of people in other countries had no effect on its ability to safeguard its most important interests, whether economic or military.
DarkHelmet wrote: Of course we need to act prudently in foreign affairs, but I don't think we need to be concerned who the leaders of other countries want as President of the US. Foreign leaders are not concerned about the well being of the US. They are focused on the well being of their own country, as they should be. They want a US President whose policies are beneficial to their country. That may or may not be in the best interest of the US. When I vote for President, I don't consider the opinions of Hugo Chavez, David Cameron, or Vladamir Putin to be relevant.
You write as if decisions that affect the interests of the US are only made within the borders of the US. That is not the case.
Important economic, diplomatic and military interests of the US can only be effectively advanced if it can secure the cooperation and support - or at least not outright opposition - of many other countries. When considering what decisions to make in relation to such US interests, it matters a great deal what foreign leaders and their electorates think of the US, and one important ingredient in that is the kind of President who gets elected.
It is therefore highly relevant if a man like Romney goes to the UK and in a few ill-chosen words manages to alienate a major ally which has repeatedly shown itself willing to support the US with the lives of its servicemen, as well as making himself look an idiot. If Romney had been elected the UK would have been significantly less to give its support to the US in future.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:You write as if decisions that affect the interests of the US are only made within the borders of the US. That is not the case.
Important economic, diplomatic and military interests of the US can only be effectively advanced if it can secure the cooperation and support - or at least not outright opposition - of many other countries. When considering what decisions to make in relation to such US interests, it matters a great deal what foreign leaders and their electorates think of the US, and one important ingredient in that is the kind of President who gets elected.
It is therefore highly relevant if a man like Romney goes to the UK and in a few ill-chosen words manages to alienate a major ally which has repeatedly shown itself willing to support the US with the lives of its servicemen, as well as making himself look an idiot. If Romney had been elected the UK would have been significantly less to give its support to the US in future.
We should elect our president based on how well we believe he will advance US interests around the world, and protect its citizens. I don't want a weak President that will appease foreign leaders. Some leaders around the world would love to have a weak US President. Romney showed himself to be a clown during his foreign policy trip, and I take that into account in the voting booth. But I still don't care what foreign leaders think, sorry. They have no say in our elections, just as we have no say in their elections. And I don't believe our relationship with the UK will be adversely affected based on who we elect as President. The UK is our closet ally, and they respect our democratic process. It's not like we have Nazis and communists running for office. Our republicans and democrats aren't far apart on the global political spectrum. And for the record, I don't think Obama is an appeaser or weak foreign policy president. I think he has done a fine job, and I never would have guessed that 4 years ago because of his inexperience. And if some leader of some country doesn't like Obama, I don't care.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Chap wrote:You write as if decisions that affect the interests of the US are only made within the borders of the US. That is not the case.
Important economic, diplomatic and military interests of the US can only be effectively advanced if it can secure the cooperation and support - or at least not outright opposition - of many other countries. When considering what decisions to make in relation to such US interests, it matters a great deal what foreign leaders and their electorates think of the US, and one important ingredient in that is the kind of President who gets elected.
It is therefore highly relevant if a man like Romney goes to the UK and in a few ill-chosen words manages to alienate a major ally which has repeatedly shown itself willing to support the US with the lives of its servicemen, as well as making himself look an idiot. If Romney had been elected the UK would have been significantly less to give its support to the US in future.
We should elect our president based on how well we believe he will advance US interests around the world, and protect its citizens.
Stop there, and we are in complete agreement. The issue between us is what factors need to be taken into account in assessing which Presidential candidate is more likely to do that effectively.
... And I don't believe our relationship with the UK will be adversely affected based on who we elect as President. The UK is our closest ally, and they respect our democratic process.
We believe different. Brits long ago ceased to believe in "The USA, right or wrong". But anyone can read the UK press over the past week or so to see which of us is nearer the truth of the matter.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Cylon wrote:I wouldn't read too much into the fact that right now both Romney and Obama are showing lower vote totals than in 2008, for the simple reason that they're not done counting the votes yet. As of right now there are over 600,000 ballots left to be counted in Arizona alone. Ohio law prohibits provisional ballots from being counted until 10 days after the election. Oregon and Washington vote entirely by mail and they only have to have ballots postmarked by election day. It's entirely possible that when they announce the official vote totals at the end of the month, both candidates will have surpassed the 2008 numbers. Of course it's also possible that one or both of them may not, but at this point it's too early to tell.
Thanks for pointing this out. Romney is definitely going to get more votes than McCain, but still not enough to win. A lot of white people apparently did not vote for President compared to last time, but from what I've read the Evangelical vote was up. I think there were a lot of white people who didn't vote for Romney because they were unhappy with the way the primaries played out. Hope they like four more years of the Messiah.
Mitt Romney did indeed end up losing this Presidential election badly. Not counting any of the votes from the Liberal leaning States of Hawaii and California, Mitt Romney still lost by over a million votes Nationwide.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Mitt Romney did indeed end up losing this Presidential election badly. Not counting any of the votes from the Liberal leaning States of Hawaii and California, Mitt Romney still lost by over a million votes Nationwide.
It's all in how you frame it, Brackie.
Out of 121 million people, he lost by less than 3%. A significant percentage of the population (almost half) voted for him. That's not something to be sneezed at.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Mitt Romney did indeed end up losing this Presidential election badly. Not counting any of the votes from the Liberal leaning States of Hawaii and California, Mitt Romney still lost by over a million votes Nationwide.
It's all in how you frame it, Brackie.
Out of 121 million people, he lost by less than 3%. A significant percentage of the population (almost half) voted for him. That's not something to be sneezed at.
With the Republicans holding the House, you can be sure no sneezing will be done. Compromises there no doubt will be.
However, for the Republicans to insist on completely setting at naught the expressed preferences of the majority of their fellow citizens would be to spit in the face of democracy - and in the medium to long term there would inevitably be consequences to that.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.