UK view of presidential candidates

[smudgex68]

Browsing a noted "right wing" UK daily newspaper for a poker story I came across this poll regarding the US presidential debates. Apart from the question "which candiate "looked best"" for which the readers of this paper may have taken the literal cosmetic interpretation, I still find it interesting the impression of these centre-right UK readers. Having seen the debate last Friday I can only conclude that from a UK perspective, both candidates were very weak in a debating forum format, probably because "traditional" political face-to-face verbal debating is not common in the US but is a weekly occurrence in the UK House of Commons.

Preferred candidate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmpolls/results.html?in_poll_id=12755&in_page_id=711&in_qu estion_id=12566&in_exists=N&in_answer1=14524)

[smudgex68]

Sorry, I think I've posted this in the wrong forum. I'll move it to politics

[jakethebake]

You do know there's a policis forum right?

[smudgex68]

I take it that you're a Republican.

[jakethebake]

No. I'm not. Why would you assume that?

[jakethebake]

Doesn't bother me but it'll get more play there.

[John Deere]

How many people voted in this? 50? Regardless, who really cares what a bunch of Brits think about our presidential candidates.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
who really cares what a bunch of Brits think about our presidential candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo! This is OUR country now.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people voted in this? 50? Regardless, who really cares what a bunch of Brits think about our presidential candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that, but the very next poll listed on that page is "Does Kate Winslet look a size 8 at the Finding Neverland premiere?"

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people voted in this? 50? Regardless, who really cares what a bunch of Brits think about our presidential candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you biggest ally and having to bail you out in Iraq, would suggest that what the brits think whilst not being the main reason for voting I would have though the outsiders view and how they stacked up in world opinion would be a key reason for voting either way.

However typical US looking inward its these policies that have caused a lot of the troubles you have now in the world at large.

The election does get coverage (you could watch the whole debate on sky news) but I think we dont understand the emphasis that these debates can turn the election either way, a sigh or a scowl and half the voters think right he cant be president, seems a bit bizarre, possibly as we are used to question time each week, plus the parties tend to have daylight between them, from what I have seen and heard there doesnt seem to be a great deal of differance between the two from a policy perspective (although I suspect the focus reported here is on forign policy).

I suspect the monority in this country that care want Kerry however the majority probably couldnt answer who the candidates were as politics is not really a big thing over here for the average person.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]


Not only that, but the very next poll listed on that page is "Does Kate Winslet look a size 8 at the Finding Neverland premiere?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people voted in this? 50? Regardless, who really cares what a bunch of Brits think about our presidential candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bunch of brits (The House of Commons) is presently discussing wether to send another bunch of Brits (The Black Watch et al) To stress points in Baghdad to free up American troops for an assault on insurgent controled areas and towns.

Tony is keen to do this but as most of the first bunch (H of C) dont like Bush they are resisting Tony over this move.

So you see what a bunch of Brits think about the President can be important to its strategic interests at times.

[jakethebake]

Well where's the link. Personally I think she looks good with a little more weight on her. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jakethebake]

ROFLMAO...Bail us out? You're lucky you're not speaking German.

[ QUOTE ]
As you biggest ally and having to bail you out in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

[daveymck]

Yes they want UK soldiers to go to the bits of Bagdad where your soldiers are currently getting killed every day. The reason being we have the skills and expertise in occupation and bringing the people onside whereas the gung ho american attitude is if it moves blow it up.

Not sure how much is being reported in the US but you do realise that your lot are still suffering multiple casualties every day in Iraq.

Its interesting that US forces are building up for a major assault on Falluja, expected to happen once your elections are over (cant have it affecting the election results) even though the war has been over for such a long time now (well according to Bush).


Article on The Different Approaches of US and UK Soldiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3755940.stm)

[jakethebake]

Of course we realize Americans are dying! How could we not. But I'd hardly call what you're proposing a "bail out". Don't you realize that it's all just politics and posturing? And if you were familiar with the situation you'd realize that bringing "people onside" isn't the issue. You really think you're going to bring a bunch of zealots "onside"? From people I know there and e-mail almost daily I understand that the majority are "onside". But they're scared. An occupation force is exactly what we don't need. The bunker/occupation mentality just gets in the way. We don't want another Ireland, (or any of the other NUMEROUS places your occupations have gone so well). And they're gonna be scared until we stop playing patty cake and send enough troops over there and stop to root out the scum and wipe them from the face of the Earth.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes they want UK soldiers to go to the bits of Bagdad where your soldiers are currently getting killed every day. The reason being we have the skills and expertise in occupation and bringing the people onside whereas the gung ho american attitude is if it moves blow it up.

Not sure how much is being reported in the US but you do realise that your lot are still suffering multiple casualties every day in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
Well where's the link. Personally I think she looks good with a little more weight on her. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read a little blurb about this in my morning paper. It says a UK 8 is equal to a US 4, and she said the report is insane and that she didn't slim down to an 8.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course we realize Americans are dying! How could we not. But I'd hardly call what you're proposing a "bail out". Don't you realize that it's all just politics and posturing? And if you were familiar with the situation you'd realize that bringing "people onside" isn't the issue. You really think you're going to bring a bunch of zealots "onside"? From people I know there and e-mail almost daily I understand that the majority are "onside". But they're scared. An occupation force is exactly what we don't need. The bunker/occupation mentality just gets in the way. We don't want another Ireland, (or any of the other NUMEROUS places your occupations have gone so well). And they're gonna be scared until we stop playing patty cake and send enough troops over there and stop to root out the scum and wipe them from the face of the Earth.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes they want UK soldiers to go to the bits of Bagdad where your soldiers are currently getting killed every day. The reason being we have the skills and expertise in occupation and bringing the people onside whereas the gung ho american attitude is if it moves blow it up.

Not sure how much is being reported in the US but you do realise that your lot are still suffering multiple casualties every day in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote the bail out comment it was after hearing the news which gave the impression it was thousands of UK troops that were going as appose to the 650 it actually will be.

However what is clear with both Afganistan and Iraq is as soon as the US troops pull out (and who knows how long term that will be) there will be a civil war, its all very well going in all guns blazing but if you dont know how to get out it becomes a problem.

[jakethebake]

Problem is there always has been and probably always be war going on continuously in that part of the world. I dunno why we think we can change that. Hopefully we can stop it from spilling out anymore than it already has, or maybe just contain it there until they lose interest and go back to killing each other instead of Westerners. Hell I dunno what the answer is.

[ QUOTE ]
When I wrote the bail out comment it was after hearing the news which gave the impression it was thousands of UK troops that were going as appose to the 650 it actually will be.

However what is clear with both Afganistan and Iraq is as soon as the US troops pull out (and who knows how long term that will be) there will be a civil war, its all very well going in all guns blazing but if you dont know how to get out it becomes a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phat Mack]

probably because "traditional" political face-to-face verbal debating is not common in the US but is a weekly occurrence in the UK House of Commons.


Here in the States, they show the Wednesday fights where the PM takes on all comers. I have to admit that I am a little envious. I'd love to see Bubba go through that once a week. Bubba's afraid of the press, I don't know what he'd do if he had to face political rivals.

What's that notebook Tony opens up in front of him? How old is the guy? He's up and down like a jack in the box. I'd be exausted if I lept out of my chair a hundred times an hour. He must want to appear eager to engage the opposition...

[Al Mirpuri]

Phat Mack,

Prime Minister's Question Time is just a charade. It is nothing to envy. The Presidential Debates were gripping. I thought Kerry won by a mile. We need Presidential style debates during UK elecitons.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is there always has been and probably always be war going on continuously in that part of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niiiiiiiiiiiiice. Not much of a history buff, are you?

This pretty much proves Davey's point.

NT