To the rest of the planet...

[Famine]

I don't get why people think a vote for McCain is a vote for the destruction of the planet. Maybe it is... Obama's way is slightly slower is all. And starts in a different place.

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't say anything about Obama being elected because of his race. You were the one that brought up the "founding principles". I don't know what founding principles you are referring to, but apparently slavery was not a contradiction to those founding principles of equality, but something that Obama stands for is?

Slavery was a contradiction, and one that we corrected. Every country makes its mistakes and falls short of their goals. No one says we were perfect, but when we granted freedom to the slaves it was based on the principal that all men are created equal, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Correct, we started off on the wrong foot but we did correct it. By the way, we did not invent slavery, we inherited it.

Redistribution of wealth is not equality. It is inequality that punishes success. Most of Obama's plans involve doing things that the Constitution forbids the president from doing. He has a complete disregard for the Constitution and in 2001 said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

He has issues with the Constitution and with the principles the Founding Fathers laid out in it.

He doesn't like that it doesn't command bigger government, when the whole point was for smaller government. This is the same man who, on January 6th, has to take an oath to uphold this same Constitution that he obviously doesn't agree with.

Here is the big kicker. He has problems with what the Constitution doesn't say because he thinks government should do that. His problem is that the Constitution lays out precisely what happens in the case when something is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution: it is delegated to the states. As Obama is part of the federal government that means those things are not in his power.

Or in the case of wealth redistribution, the Constitution explicitly forbids it.

 

[V1P3R]

As an American that has been embarrassed about being an American for a long time I feel a little better that the world approves more. As for being a Kalifornyan, I'm still embarrassed (maybe more now)...

 

[Danoff]

His problem is that the Constitution lays out precisely what happens in the case when something is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution: it is delegated to the states. As Obama is part of the federal government that means those things are not in his power. Or in the case of wealth redistribution, the Constitution explicitly forbids it.

I would argue that the constitution also forbids the states from engaging in redistribution of wealth, but that's another thread.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would argue that the constitution also forbids the states from engaging in redistribution of wealth, but that's another thread.

It does. You are right. It is covered in the Constitution in the Powers of Congress in limiting taxes and excises to only being used for debt and general welfare. Thus it is an issue addressed (and forbidden) in the Constitution, and not delegated to the states.

I was referring more to Obamas public school plans and various others that are not under the power of the Federal government.

EDIT: I see how you got what I was saying confused....

 

[Biggles]

Ah, the "Joe The Plumber" position.

Interesting that you should quote Thomas Jefferson, as he was the owner of many slaves, even though he himself, clearly realized it was an illogical & immoral institution. All of which underlines that the "founding fathers", the U.S. Constitution & indeed, all human beings are flawed & capable of making mistakes.

Look, to go back to the O.P., whatever you think of Obama & his policies, the fact is that the majority of the rest of the world sees him as emblematic of all that is best about the U.S. So, yes, it will result in a much more positive view of the U.S. 👍👍👍

 

[Danoff]

Look, to go back to the O.P., whatever you think of Obama & his policies, the fact is that the majority of the rest of the world sees him as emblematic of all that is best about the U.S. So, yes, it will result in a much more positive view of the U.S. 👍👍👍

Except that this isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. This is about government - principles, laws, justice, rights...

I honestly don't care what the rest of the world thinks. And I don't care what other Americans think. The constitution has to be obeyed (see my sig).

 

[FoolKiller]

Interesting that you should quote Thomas Jefferson, as he was the owner of many slaves, even though he himself, clearly realized it was an illogical & immoral institution. All of which underlines that the "founding fathers", the U.S. Constitution & indeed, all human beings are flawed & capable of making mistakes.

Yes, but instead of just accepting these flaws I am speaking out. What kind of honest citizen would I be if I said, "Well, he will screw us all over with his class warfare he wishes to start but the rest of the world will love us. Hugs for everyone!!!"?

Look, to go back to the O.P., whatever you think of Obama & his policies, the fact is that the majority of the rest of the world sees him as emblematic of all that is best about the U.S.

Please, explain what it is about him that will do that.

 

[Famine]

I'm English/British and I don't see either candidate as being emblematic of all that is best with the USA. In fact I don't really see either of them representing any part of what I think is good about the USA.

 

[V1P3R]

what I think is good about the USA.

Just a question to an outsider looking in but... what do you see good about the USA?

 

[Grand Prix]

What I find humorous is that Canada (sorta, not quite) elected a right wing government while the US went the opposite direction.

What kind of impact will this have on the relationship between the two neighbours? The magnitude of impact on free trade, price of gasoline, tourism, forestry, and the automobile industry is up in the air. How many Republican Americans will move here? How many Liberal Canadians will move there? I dunno.

I can't help but think of this cartoon.

"Chester is my hero!"

 

[Famine]

Just a question to an outsider looking in but... what do you see good about the USA?

Pretty much the Constitution.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because Americans in general have spent at least the last 5 years, if not longer, being treated by the rest of the world like we are complete morons led by an imbecile. That has allegedly changed. I'll expect the world's attitude to change now that we have allegedly changed.

I used to subscribe to all the tired stereotypes about the States when I was younger (and effectively knew nothing) but despite Bush's best efforts I've had a complete turnaround of opinion, helped in no small way by spending a month there last year with a couple of mates and just soaking everything up. I know "the grass is always greener on the other side" but the UK has it's fair share of issues too, albeit different ones, and although our leader isn't a categorical moron like Bush is, he's equally as disliked by our population.

Anyway don't worry too much. If you got all the countries in the world to vote for the one they hated the most, it wouldn't surprise me to see "England" at the top of the list. Our history of colonisation and our stereotypical arrogance probably see to that...

If they're drunk as well, they're British.

I'm English/British and I don't see either candidate as being emblematic of all that is best with the USA. In fact I don't really see either of them representing any part of what I think is good about the USA.

Agreed. Which is why I've mostly kept out of any US election debates. I wouldn't have minded who won as long as in the next four years they prove themselves. I happen to like the country and the people - not the leaders.

 

[Duke]

Look, to go back to the O.P., whatever you think of Obama & his policies, the fact is that the majority of the rest of the world sees him as emblematic of all that is best about the U.S. So, yes, it will result in a much more positive view of the U.S. 👍👍👍

Which was my point exactly. We did what the world has been bitching and moaning and trying to shame us into doing for the last 7 years.

Now I fully expect the bitching and moaning and shaming to end.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think that, going by the international reaction of the election, that America gained a lot of credibility with last night. It's a step in the right direction, and although the people haven't changed all that much, their image has shifted. I could only hope it's a good thing.

I wholeheartedly agree. While I do believe that McCain could have acted as a "healer" to some extent following the George W. Bush presidency, his campaign and to a greater extent the little "R" following his name does not lend as much credibility to that as it could have, or possibly, should. President-elect Obama to a greater extent, not only in the US, but around the world has the word "Change" ringing through the ears of billions. America has never been the great favorite in any corner of the world at all times, but at the very least, the passing of the baton will give us a much easier path to reach the healing that many of us need or want.

 

[McLaren]

Personally, my perceptions of the average American, have changed considerably for the better, and I can see that it will stay that way for good! This election win is Monumental! 👍

So I assume you think we were just a bunch of racist morons until we elected Obama, right? What would you think of us if we elected McCain instead?

 

[Biggles]

Now I fully expect the bitching and moaning and shaming to end.

Duke: I think the rest of the world actually wants the U.S. to be a beacon in the world. The election of Obama has restored worldwide respect for the U.S.

Now all he needs to do appoint a non-partisan & broadly-based team of advisors. I'm thinking: Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor, Charles Rangel at Treasury &, yes, Al Sharpton as Chief of Staff. Oh, & to promote ethnic diversity, Bill Richardson at Defence.

 

[Keef]

Duke: I think the rest of the world actually wants the U.S. to be a beacon in the world. The election of Obama has restored worldwide respect for the U.S.

Appeasement doesn't work. We tried that already. I think the idea that the U.S. should compromise in order to make everyone else in the world happy is pathetic and frankly I'm offended by it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Appeasement doesn't work. We tried that already. I think the idea that the U.S. should compromise in order to make everyone else in the world happy is pathetic and frankly I'm offended by it.

I'd hate for the US to try and become all luvvy-duvvy just to curry favour with the rest of the world but that's different from the rest of the world being more happy with who's in charge now.

It's no different from me not wishing the UK to become part of the amorphous mass of Europe and adopt all the EU's laws, but still thinking that the Euro is a good idea.

 

[TheCracker]

Appeasement doesn't work. We tried that already.

Sorry, when was this?

I think the idea that the U.S. should compromise in order to make everyone else in the world happy is pathetic and frankly I'm offended by it.

That's fine as long as you don't expect other nations to follow or agree with your crusades.

 

[Biggles]

Appeasement doesn't work.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Stevisiov]

Which was my point exactly. We did what the world has been bitching and moaning and trying to shame us into doing for the last 7 years.

Now I fully expect the bitching and moaning and shaming to end.

The problem is the Select few (not the world ) will carry on moaning about the US, For many Bush was a scapegoat and now he is gone/going the US haters (so to speak) will just find something else from America to moan about, they are pretty set in their ways. So expecting the bitching and moaning to stop is a bit hopefull to say the least.

 

[McLaren]

Appeasement doesn't work. We tried that already. I think the idea that the U.S. should compromise in order to make everyone else in the world happy is pathetic and frankly I'm offended by it.

I agree. I don't think the US needed to elect Obama just to make the world happy, considering that there were more pressing issues at hand. I'm hoping our voters voted him in because of them thinking his policies would help us, not so that they could please the world.

 

[Grand Prix]

I don't think the moaning will end. Once countries like Iran start causing trouble now that the Democrats are in power, I expect the rest of the world to be moaning for the US to do something about it. Which rings more than just a few bells.

Basically, if you're American, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. And so were the Brits. And so were the Romans. And so were the Greeks.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Now all he needs to do appoint a non-partisan & broadly-based team of advisors. I'm thinking: Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor, Charles Rangel at Treasury &, yes, Al Sharpton as Chief of Staff. Oh, & to promote ethnic diversity, Bill Richardson at Defence.

Uh...what the hell, why should ethnicity play a part in who gets the job?

 

[McLaren]

I don't think the moaning will end. Once countries like Iran start causing trouble now that the Democrats are in power, I expect the rest of the world to be moaning for the US to do something about it. Which rings more than just a few bells.

Basically, if you're American, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. And so were the Brits. And so were the Romans. And so were the Greeks.

Unfortunately, that is too true. We try to help anyone and when we can't, others backlash us for not doing so. I'm in amazement sometimes as to why we even bother helping certain countries when they'll just leave us hanging later on when we ask for their help.

 

[Biggles]

Uh...what the hell, why should ethnicity play a part in who gets the job?

It shouldn't! I was joking (hence the )

Basically, if you're American, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. And so were the Brits. And so were the Romans. And so were the Greeks.

The British liked to call it "The White Man's Burden" & yes, the U.S. is in a somewhat similar (quasi) imperialist position.

Unfortunately, that is too true. We try to help anyone and when we can't, others backlash us for not doing so. I'm in amazement sometimes as to why we even bother helping certain countries when they'll just leave us hanging later on when we ask for their help.

Strangely enough, people in "certain countries" may not look at invasion by a foreign power, the deaths of tens of thousands of their people, the destruction of their infrastructure & the chaos of civil war as being "helping".

The point is, like every other great power in the past, the U.S. has done good things in the world, but also destructive things, motivated not by altruism, but by self-interest. Distrust & hatred of the Americans (& the British & the French) in the Middle East is based on a long history of "imperialist" meddling in the area.

But again, to get back to the O.P., internationally, there is a huge outpouring of goodwill towards the U.S. as a result of the election of Obama, which I take as a sign that, whereas there is always going to be an element of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in the world, fundamentally the rest of the world does want to look to the U.S. for leadership & it sees the promise of that leadership in Obama & most definitely did not in George W. Bush.

 

[Grand Prix]

It shouldn't! I was joking (hence the )



The British liked to call it "The White Man's Burden" & yes, the U.S. is in a somewhat similar (quasi) imperialist position.



Strangely enough, people in "certain countries" may not look at invasion by a foreign power, the deaths of tens of thousands of their people, the destruction of their infrastructure & the chaos of civil war as being "helping".

You have to understand that (like the British in the past), the U.S. has done good things in the world, but also destructive things, motivated not by altruism, but by self-interest. Distrust & hatred of the Americans (& the British & the French) in the Middle East is based on a long history of "imperialist" meddling in the area.

That's true. However, if say, Canada (for the sake of humour) were to suddenly become a hyperpower tomorrow, I can guarantee you we would be despised all over the globe, and our negative qualities as a nation would be brought into the spotlight. Jealousy is something we can't seem to get rid of.

 

[Keef]

Sorry, when was this?

Sorry, my mistake. That was Britain that practiced it in the late 1930s. It didn't work. Lowering yourself to please others is not human nature, and it's illogical.

That's fine as long as you don't expect other nations to follow or agree with your crusades.

I don't expect anyone to follow anything my country does, especially when I don't agree with the actions myself. Yes, one of the government's main jobs is to protect me, the citizen. But that doesn't necessarily involve preemptive strikes on could-be enemies. I didn't want it; they did it themselves. That's one of the problems. The Constitution doesn't allow for the U.S. to be the policeman of the world.

The sad thing is that Big Stick diplomacy is almost necessary these days. When you've got people like Iran who absolutely refuse to follow the rules and guidelines agreed upon by nations around the world, you never know what they're going to do next. The government must protect us--and that might mean that they have to halt a threat while it's threatening us, as opposed to attacking us. We shouldn't have to be bullies, but I think if you had a crackhead running crazed up and down your street you might go out there and whop him a good one to show him what's up. If you don't do that, the police will just roam around in their Land Cruisers and say "Sorry, he won't stop when we say please."

We don't know what would happen if we stopped sticking our noses in other people's business. I guess the logic in Washington is that if we do that, the maniacs over in the Middle East will see it as a sign of weakness or giving up. But maybe not. I don't think anybody knows.

 

[McLaren]

Strangely enough, people in "certain countries" may not look at invasion by a foreign power, the deaths of tens of thousands of their people, the destruction of their infrastructure & the chaos of civil war as being "helping".

Who said I was solely referring to the war? Do you not remember that huge Tsunami years back that took hundreds of thousands of lives, I believe in Asia? The US helped, but there were a few powers with the gall to say we didn't do enough to help them.

The point is, like every other great power in the past, the U.S. has done good things in the world, but also destructive things, motivated not by altruism, but by self-interest. Distrust & hatred of the Americans (& the British & the French) in the Middle East is based on a long history of "imperialist" meddling in the area.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but again, I wasn't solely commenting on the current war.