Aren't you also worried that people think the USA election is about pigments?

Question

If if it is.. then let it be about rainbows!

Far be it for me to be critical of the most powerful gov't in the world....and it's people... like.. I'm chillun out here in Australia working up my suntan... but haven't you guys got more to consider .. What about the presidential candidate's policy on the little spat you guys are involved in the Middle East region.. or global warming.. or maybe economic policy .. or how about you do us all a favour and dig a big hole to bury the Westborough Baptist Church in... just for example...

I mean.... I obviously don't speak for the rest of the world... but I can say that as a citizen of Australia watching all the fanfare of the USA election process from afar, and reading all the banter on this forum... I think you had better get your heads screwed on and grow up.

Your election isn't about the pigment of somebody's skin... and people all over the world are a little anxious that you dudes would go ahead and wanna decide an election on that basis.

Answer 1

Prof Icy--I'm in my late 40s and trust me when I say that people are very concerned about world opinion and also very concerned about the effect of racism on politics. The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. There is also a growing movement of people who want to see people in the Bush Administration tried for war crimes for lying about the reasons for going to war, torturing prisoners, spying on Americans, etc.

It is very difficult to speak to people because there is a large part of America that listens to hate talk shows. Hate talk shows are extremely popular in America and they work very hard to focus people's attention on issues that don't really matter. For example, in the last few months, polls showed that a large number of Americans believe that the biggest problem in America is illegal aliens. And if you go door-to-door as I do and talk to people, you notice that Democrats will immediately talk about issues such as the war, the economy, protection of freedoms, etc., but Republicans will immediately say either "we don't believe in killing babies" and slam the door or "we don't want no more taxes" and slam the door. They are typically people who have not traveled in Europe and they do not have a global perspective of issues. They also usually don't have college degrees.

The Earth, above, is a classic example of one of the people who listen to hate talk radio. They believe that charging powerful people with crimes when they break the law is extremist because that's what people on hate talk radio tell them. I saw the Watergate trials and I know that it doesn't matter how powerful you are--you are not above the law. A book was just written by a Constitutional lawyer that lays out all the reason why George W. Bush could be tried for his role in taking us to war in Iraq. G.W. Bush said that he would make sure that whoever the person was in his Administration who was responsible for outing a CIA agent would be punished, then he pardoned that person so he wouldn't have to serve any jail time. G.W. Bush approved the use of torture which violates the Geneva Convention that America signed onto and vowed to uphold. None of these things that I say are extremist. I am simply saying that we need to uphold our nation's laws and the Constitution. To call that an extremist position is appalling and is one of the things that is upsetting many Americans. Average Americans do not think that the rich and powerful should be allowed to evade our nation's laws.

Answer 2

So true!  Americans have had their heads stuck in the sand being "wanna be's".  They have no clue about the rest of the world.  They almost have no clue what is going on outside their own neighborhood.  For the average American to actually do research on each candidate and not listen to the bias news????  You just may be asking too much.  It's sad, but true, otherwise more of  us would see the truth and chose the best man.........Obama.

Answer 3

I am amazed that a country would directly elect someone and allow them to even have a policy on anything. The legislative branch of government is where policy should be vetted and decided. It should be the role of a president to carry out the policy of the legislative branch, and to deal with events that come up on short notice, until the legislative branch can deal with them.

Presidents should manage the civil service and armed forces to carry out the decisions of the legislative branch, and should know his limitations and authorities. But in terms of policies too often brought into discussion presidential candidates should be answering that this is within the jurisdiction and competence of the legislative branch.

But why? Because the only way people will pay due attention to their legislative elections is to understand that it is the legislative branch that can and should make these policy decisions.

When we understand this, the color of the president will be seen as important only insofar as it demonstrated the open mindedness of the electorate. The figurehead being a mixed racial person would demonstrate that nicely. The figurehead being a woman would demonstrate that well.

But the legislative branch should not allow the president of any color to usurp its primary area of competence.

Answer 4

Jeez, it sucks having a lot of "non-Americans" generalize Americans all as the same people.  We all don't fall under the category of not knowing what goes out in the world.  Sometimes people are just too busy working their *** off to pay the slightest attention to the news or some can't afford to get access to even some newspapers or Internet or television to find out what's going on.

Anyway, just a random bit -- try telling all what you're saying to the people who make a big deal out of skin colour.  s:

Answer 5

The whole of the people, by the people, for the people is a little scary when the people are more influenced by 'People' than by common sense and critical thinking.  

Answer 6

that is pretty much what this election is about ,and no one will admit it ,blacks are voting Obama just because he is Black !!

Answer 7

The rest of the world will call Obama an African-American because he is directly from an African and an American.  But otherwise they only mention color if the story doesn't make sense without it.  Default is your nationality.  You realize how different white people look from one another when you go to Europe where they don't migrate as much.

Answer 8

Hon, the Democrats on this board do; sadly to say.

Racism is more alive today then yesteryear.

Answer 9

haha....I completely agree. Many in the US don't take politics too seriously and will vote the way their parents voted 40 years ago, or not vote at all. The people you hear from most will, obviously, be overzealous to get their points across. In this forum, everything is hyped up far more than in real life. Everyone makes baseless claims and counter-claims. I am sure it makes us all look bad. You aren't being critical, you are 'calling a spade a spade'....that's what it is....for better of for worse.  

Answer 10

here in israel we've had coalitions almost fall because of pigs and non kosher shops.

Answer 11

NO ... forget race/color !!

Obama's ideas and policies are scary !!   He wants to give our sovereignty away to the United Nations through his Global Poverty Act (S.2433).

Alaska Govermor Sarah Palin has MORE TOTAL political experience than Obama!!

KS1982

Answer 12

I consider all comers regardless of age, s*x, race or political persuasion. Yahoo Answers is not a cross section of American thought. Here you will find extremists, naive children, and clinically angry people to a much greater degree than the general population. Most Americans try to make sense of the options before we vote.

There is one exception. African Americans will overwhelmingly vote for Obama. I don't consider this racist per se because we've never had a black president before. I've read several posts over the last year that read something like: He's black and that's all I need to know. (issues be damned) The milestone outweighs the issues in this case.

changewemust77

If you've seen my Q&As, then you know I do my own research. McCain was straightforward and easy, including the things he'd prefer not to talk about, like his divorce.

Obama on the other hand is another story. Everytime I try to research his past I hit a brick wall shrouded in mystery, littered with unsavory characters.

Since McCain blows Obama out of the water when it comes to judgement and experience, I've been having a lot more fun comparing Obama to Governor Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate. They are a lot closer, but it seems like Palin still wins in performance and judgement:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12200498...

Edit

Donflech

In the US, our constitution requires the president to sign legislation into law. The executive gets his say along with the legislative branch in an up or down vote if you will. How a president is likely to side is important in the election process for this reason. The president does also, from time to time, introduce legislation which the congress may choose to treat or table at their discression.

Things are different in many other free-world countries. England's executive for example, is completely uninvolved in legislative affairs as I understand it.

Diane B.<===one of the extremists I was talking about.

Diane B.

You missed the mark with me, but good try. I listen to NPR almost exclusively, except that we have one classical music station and I occasionally listen to that. I choose NPR because I'm a moderate conservative and the extremist stations don't sit any better with me than they do with the moderate liberals and the liberal extremists like yourself. If anything, NPR (national public radio) is a little left leaning, but I'm all grown up now, older than you in fact (born Aug. 1955,) and I am not easily swayed by talk jocks of any persuasion. I choose NPR for it's news content and it's guests.

I wish you'd named "your" constitutional lawyer but it doesn't really matter. It's their job to hide out in universities and consider extreme positions on the constitution. There are always books written by constitutional attorneys arguing that a given president should be inpeached, sensured or tried, etc., but it's yours and my job to recognize this as the extreme thought that it is. If there were any foundation for a case agaist Bush, don't you think Pelosi or Reid would have brought it? They have the majority now, right?

Off the top of my head, Bush acted within his rights, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, when he pardoned "Scooter" Libby. I guess he was thinking that going from VP Chief of Staff to looking for a job under the humiliation of 300 million Americans knowing what he did, punishment enough.

The US ratified the Geneva Conventions versions 1 - 4, the most recent of which we assigned in 1949. The latter versions brought forth in 1977 have not been approved by the US. In this country, that leaves the question of waterboarding just that, a question.

Extreme liberals like the Obama Faithful are much harder to reason with than moderate liberals like Clinton and Edwards. I also struggle with extreme conservatives like Bush and other Neocons. I think McCain is probably most correct for our country. If elected, he will drag us a little left, closer to the middle but after 8 years of Bush, that's what we need. People on your end, like Obama, would drag us all the way to Socialism if given half a chance. People on the Neocon end would drag us to Fascism if not restrained. The conservatives and liberals are in constant tension with each other, keeping our great nation in the middle somewhere. I like it here. This is where I think we ought to be.

BTW, I watched the Watergate Case with rapt interest. I was a college freshman when Chief Prosecuter Archibald Cox said "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now before Congress and ultimately the American people." Like you Diane, I'll take the rule of law any day!

NOTE TO ICY: I hope this little debate between Diane B and myself has convinced you that we [Americans] don't particularly care about skin pigmentation.

In case anyone happens to read this far, here's a light and funny look at this year's race for the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAaYorwW4...

Answer 13

Please don't think that just because the media has made a lot of ado . They always do. I think that the American people will make the right choice. I would vote for Obama if he was purple with yellow & pink polka dots! It's not about the color of one's skin I'm voting for. It's for the issues at stake!

Answer 14

I am not sure what your question really is but I'll answer any way. I do not think it is about anything but the issues. There will always be people that have odd personal agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues or a candidates abilities.