Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google Plus Tell a Friend
Home| Columns| Features| International| In Dutch| Dictionary| What's On| Jobs| Housing| Expats| Blogs| Books
 
 
««« previousnext »»»

Dutch PM congratulates Obama, looks forward to four more years

Wednesday 07 November 2012

US%20election%20night%20in%20Amsterdam.jpg Thousands of people attended special US presidential election events in Amsterdam, The Hague and elsewhere in the Netherlands. Photo: WFA

Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte has congratulated Barack Obama on his re-election as president of the United States and says he looks forward to continuing their ‘excellent’ working relationship, news agency ANP reports on Wednesday.

‘Congratulations to president Barack Obama on his re-election after an extremely exciting race,’ Rutte said in a statement from Istanbul, where he is leading a trade mission.

‘The Netherlands looks forward to continuing the excellent alliance with the Obama administration in a number of areas over the next four years.’

Referring to the trade and investment relationship between the two countries, Rutte said: ‘We want that to grow further in the future. The Netherlands will therefore put effort into establishing a free trade agreement between the US and the European Union’.

Foreign minister Frans Timmermans also sent his best wishes to the president. ‘In a changed world, the trans-Atlantic relationship is an anchor. The Netherlands and its partners will continue to invest in this,’ ANP quoted the new minister as saying.


Share your thoughts on Obama's re-election using the comment box below.

© DutchNews.nl



 

Readers' Comments

Man, I feel proud today :) once again my home country has proven why it is the greatest nation on earth. Obama's acceptance speech - 'We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world's ever known.' This is MY USA, my people.
Congrats Obama! and thank you sir

By Bill | 7 November 2012 7:55 AM

I'm relieved

By GS | 7 November 2012 8:38 AM

I agree with Bill..just elated. I certainly hope free trade agreements go through. I am sick of paying so much in customs taxes!

By M | 7 November 2012 9:18 AM

remember 'money talks bullshit walks'. The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.

Even poor Mitt Romney was outraised by the Obama money machine at his former employer, Bain Capital, by a margin of 2 to 1.

By Highlander | 7 November 2012 10:14 AM

Rutte: "Congratulations Mr Obama."

Obama: "Who are you and how did you get my number?"

By DingleyDoo | 7 November 2012 10:38 AM

There is an ugly stereotype that Americans are fat and stupid. Re-electing this idiot just proves the point. 330 million people in the Country, and these are the two best people we can find? The only people that are head over heels in love with this President are the type that listen to movie stars, pop idols, and TV critics to find out what they should believe in.

I have to head back to the US this year, and fully live with more unemployment, higher taxes, increasing national debt, more people on welfare, and more and more government spending.

We now have +50% of people wanting free handouts. Democracy has no chance.

By DH | 7 November 2012 11:11 AM

Yes Highlander, you may be correct that the Democrat party did raise more money through donations, but if Reuters are to be believed then 98% of the donations were below $250. That means A LOT of people gave a little. Unlike Mitt who had fewer, yet richer donators.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/06/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSBRE89509B20121006

By Geuzen76 | 7 November 2012 11:50 AM

@Highlander, to put it in perpective: I heard on the BBC this morning that the total amount of money spent on the Presidental Election (billions of dollars) was dwarfed by the amount of money Americans spent on Halloween costumes and decorations - which was more than double the election cost! I suppose that is just the cost of a good party these days.

By jaycee | 7 November 2012 12:36 PM

Somewhat relevant to the fundraising. This year in USA 7.4 BILLION will be spent on various election campaigns.

By relevant | 7 November 2012 12:37 PM

Well put, Bill. I totally agree. In this segment and the rest of his speech, Obama is definitely reaching out to all groups, regardless of whether they contributed to his success.
Having parents in the Foreign Service, i lived most of my life outside the U.S. and even now spend a great deal of time in Holland. The average American has little idea how well-respected Obama is among other nations, far better (actually no comparison) to his predecessor.
And I agree with you and GS -- I'm proud and relieved!

By Carol | 7 November 2012 3:02 PM

If voting made any difference, we wouldn't be allowed to do it -- Mark Twain.

Still, Obama is marginally better than the genetically modified snake-oil salesman. I expect the Iranians think so, anyway,

By woods | 7 November 2012 3:31 PM

It remains to be seen whether or not this is a good thing. On one hand, continuity of policy can be helpful. A severe shift right when the economy is picking up might hurt. On the other hand, this president has mushroomed the federal deficit far beyond any other president. If he doesn't get entitlement reform worked on, the USA could end up like southern European countries.

By Riccarda | 7 November 2012 3:35 PM

@Highlander: The fact is that Wall-street, in total, supported Romney two to one. Goldman Sachs is the only banker to give more money to Obama, the rest supported Romney.

By Quince | 7 November 2012 3:45 PM

@Highlander: Please provide a source for your facts. The Center for Responsive Politics shows Romney raising nearly three times as much from the financial sector as Obama did, and shows Romney's top five donors to be financial institutions while none of Obama's are (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php).

If you're arguing that corporate donations are toxic to democracy - regardless of who benefits - then I agree. Let's hope Citizens United v. FEC can be reversed.

By John | 7 November 2012 4:32 PM

So the lesser of the two evils won, bravo!

What's next, invade Iran & more food stamps, or borrow more invisible money from the Fed Reserve?

By The visitor | 7 November 2012 4:42 PM

The conservative agenda included not merely bad analysis of the election but purposely fed mis-information to its adherents to tickle their ears with what they wanted to hear. They concentrated on the trivial and blew out the significant. The more 'liberal' news sources such as CNN and NPR gave the best analysis and predictions offering the pros and cons on an objective basis. Rush, Rove, the Fox News network need to learn you can't bluff your hand with what you want to happen and honestly provide their adherents truthful reporting.

By roland | 7 November 2012 4:44 PM

Obama has still aid from Arab World. Also, good deal of it is from Bosnians who robbed companies and escaped to USA in 1995. One who robbed our home works in WH

By Natko Muhamedagic | 7 November 2012 5:35 PM

From President Obama's speech:

'You’ll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who’s working his way through college and wants to make sure every child has that same opportunity.'
'We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt'

Please take note of the man you applaud, Mr Rutte: invest in your youth, don't burden them as you intend to.

By osita | 7 November 2012 6:05 PM

with participation figures below 50% of eligible voters, his re-election speaks for itself.

By dork | 7 November 2012 6:12 PM

And let's not fget Mitt Romney won the popular votes. He only lost to electoral votes. This is the 2nd time (after Bush's election in 2000) that a candidate loses despite winning majority of votes.

By dork | 7 November 2012 6:14 PM

Couldn't agree w/you more, Highlander.

Additionally, when 50% of a once great country votes against its own Constitution and the "rule of law" which has historically prevailed, that nation can not long remain free. The White House Occupier's words belie his actions.

De Oppresso Liber

By Drawer 22 | 7 November 2012 8:24 PM

88% of EU voted for Obama,
48% of US voted agaist Obama
Let's hope he can deliver his promises to EU

By derks | 7 November 2012 9:14 PM

The Ind Mandate was developed in part to counter a single payer system.

It was constitutional when the Heritage Foundation created it. It became unconstitutional only when Dems supported the Hertiage Foundation idea.

By Actongue | 7 November 2012 11:16 PM

@dork, while electoral votes were far from reflective of the actual popular votes, Obama did win abt 50.4% of popular to Mitt's 48.1% (last count). Roughly 2.5 million more votes. Sources all over the newsite.

By RD | 8 November 2012 3:10 AM

@dork - only you and Donald Trump think that Romney won the popular vote. He didn't, Obama won both.

By Alice | 8 November 2012 6:47 AM

@alice:

34,xxx,xxx Romney
32,xxx,xxx Obama

Participation below 50%

Go figure.

By dork | 8 November 2012 9:34 AM

Just hope that he can deliver. If he can turn US debtless, he can be chief of IMF when his term ends.

By ufo | 8 November 2012 10:06 AM

Long on drones, short on mormonism.

By Dr Ponzi | 8 November 2012 10:26 AM

So only 50% of the people were bothered to vote? That sure is something to be proud of. And how is it democratic that it is possible to win the popular vote and still lose the election?

By tim | 8 November 2012 3:24 PM

@ufo: he (obama) caused the biggest increase in the national debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/).

By dork | 8 November 2012 7:31 PM

It's tiresome having to clean up after Republicans - you never have a big enough bucket - but I can't let dork's last comment sit here uncorrected.

The popular vote was won by Obama 60,892,346 to 57,956, 347. Source: https://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

By John | 8 November 2012 10:32 PM

@dork: your numbers contradict every single website that is keeping track on elections! Every single of them!

By Andre L. | 9 November 2012 12:57 AM

Dork: Romney did not win the popular vote, that's a lie. But you say it's the second time a President won without with popular vote? Hmm. What about in 1824, 1844, 1856, 1860, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1916,
1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 (the only one you remembered)? There was no popular vote before 1824, btw.

Every president who won the electoral college but lost the popular vote was Republican, as it happens - in highly disputed cases for a couple of them, too. Obama won the majority of the vote. He won the election handily, despite all the usual Republican election-rigging. Accept it.

By glenn_uk | 9 November 2012 3:29 AM

@dork - pwned!

By J | 9 November 2012 7:18 AM

it seems that someone is having trouble accepting that Romney got his ass kicked ;) Obama won the popular vote by about 2.5% according to most credible news sources. http://www.policymic.com/articles/18757/who-won-the-popular-vote-9-takeaways-from-election-day-2012
That is not a close victory anymore dork; that's an ass kicking. In the electoral voting, your boy got DESTROYED: 332 Obama, 206 Mitty. These are facts. Deal with it and submit. God some of these conservatives make me tired.

By B | 9 November 2012 8:03 AM

to all the obama lovers:

the base of electoral vote is anti democracy: it means some votes are more valuable than others. it means ohio voters had a bigger say than texans.

electoral system is bugos and fake.

By dork | 9 November 2012 8:24 AM

@john:
so according to your website (i don trust google ever) , obama won by 50.5% of the popular votes. 0.5% majority is amazing.something to be really proud of .

Congratulations on his great performance!!!

By dork | 9 November 2012 8:26 AM

@Glenn_UK, can you back up your assertions? From what I see it has only happened 4 times in History, 3 in the 19th century. Of course this is the way it SHOULD work with the Electoral College. The EC is less relevant today than a couple hundred years ago of course, but still somewhat relevant. Since you're a Brit, ask the Scots what they think about England having the freedom to push things that screw Scotland based on 'Polular Vote'.

Your comment about Republican election-rigging is just silly, but I suspect you know that, and are just trolling, so I'll let that slide for the sake of humour.

By DH | 9 November 2012 8:54 AM

Amusing though these comments are the truth is America is the loser regardless of who won. Those who are quick to spit out any statistics they can find are the ones with an agenda to push. You don't need statistics to see where the US is heading in the next 12 months. There's a reason all that ammo has been bought up by the various agencies in the past few months and it ain't gonna be pretty.

By Dr Ponzi | 9 November 2012 9:55 AM

Dork
If Obama had 50.5% of the popular vote then the best that Romney could do was 49.5% even by elementary mathematics that is not a difference of 0.5%
You are indeed living-up to your alias -well chosen

By nd | 9 November 2012 9:58 AM

@dork - So you concede that Obama won the popular vote? Or perhaps you have another website that shows the "unskewed" results? You might not like the way the US elects its leaders, but don't blame me - blame the Constitution. How about you suck it up and try again in four years?

By John | 9 November 2012 11:03 AM

I prefer the dutch election system rather than the us electoral district system which is subjected to gerrymandering.

By ufo | 9 November 2012 11:46 AM

@john: i don't accept obama won. he was declared winner as soon as a electoral vote count reached minimum 270 while he had no popular vote majority then.

@nd: obama caused the bigges jump in nationla debt. next to it, he won by electoral system which belongs to the stone age.

like i said, elecvtoral vote implies some voters are mroe equal than others. EOD.

By dork | 9 November 2012 1:24 PM

@dork - So first you say Obama didn't win the popular vote, then you say he only won it by a 0.5% margin, and now you're saying he didn't win at all because you don't like the way the US runs its elections?

My bucket overfloweth.

By John | 9 November 2012 7:09 PM

The Electoral College was established by our founding fathers and is enshrined in our US Constitution.

President Obama also won the popular vote by over 3 million votes.

It's ironic that the same whiners about the Electoral College are the same people whining about President Obama, the Constitution Law Professor, ignorantly accusing HIM of destroying the Constitution. Ha!

For goodness sakes, stop being a dork.

By Bud | 10 November 2012 5:00 AM

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsletter| RSS| Advertising| Business services| Mobile| Friends| Privacy| Contact| About us| Tell a Friend
Apartments for rent Rondvaart - Amsterdam