How does the world see Americans (and McCain/Obama)

[warmi]

fine, replace "the world" by "the majority world wide"

Changes nothing.

I don't understand the point. Since he has been chosen as the democrat candidate, he surely meets the requirements in his policies. Secondly, what is "European policies" ? there are many different countries in Europe, with very different policies. The only common thing is the economic policy, which is pretty similar to American's.

That's not the point.
He is just a candidate. His overall support is hovering about 50% at this point and , as you just pointed out, his support in Europe is about 80% which alone illustrates the difference between EU and USA.

especially in the far right wing. it's a taboo.

It is not at all. If anything it is the left who is preoccupied with racial, ethnic and social differences and won't pass any opportunity to exploit them.
Their whole policy is based making various distinctions between us vs. them, rich vs. poor, black vs. whites vs. Latinos etc ..

[Evak]

I think people like Obama because he's good at public speaking and tells people what they want to hear. That's partly why he is so popular in Europe.

Just like Tony Blair was popular early on when he ran on change and targeted the youth of the day.

People here in the US are uncertain because he's a newbie in the political game and barely anyone heard of him till he decided to run, not to mention that people that aren't in the US don't have to face any real consequences from their choices.

Also the US is huge, I'm in North California and Illinois where Obama is from is like a foreign country in the EU. Distance wise, its like someone in London voting for the leader of Turkey. (aproximately the same distance)

Plus the economy isn't good right now and Obama will most likely be raising taxes, which will suck for people like me who paid $1000's more when Clinton was president and right now is practicaly scraping by month to month with no savings whilst paying off debts. Something quite common right now.

[syd]

His overall support is hovering about 50% at this point and , as you just pointed out, his support in Europe is about 80% which alone illustrates the difference between EU and USA.

I think people like Obama because he's good at public speaking and tells people what they want to hear. That's partly why he is so popular in Europe.

hey guys, it seems you didn't read the graph well, look at it more closely. He's not popular just in Europe, he's popular everywhere. Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, someone above talked about 70% in Canada.
Obama rocks everywhere.

Plus the economy isn't good right now and Obama will most likely be raising taxes, which will suck for people like me who paid $1000's more when Clinton was president and right now is practicaly scraping by month to month with no savings whilst paying off debts. Something quite common right now.

Indeed, he will raise taxes.
The problem is that there is no alternative. The economy is in a nasty situation... Whoever will be president, there is no choice, the money to pay the debts has to come from somewhere. How many trillion cost the war? Has bush taken care of it? The more the war will continue, the more debts will be dug.
And all that borrowed money comes from China, keep thinking about it. The fact is that the economy can't afford low taxes anymore, the good times are over, that's a fact. It's not his health care program that will make things worse since it's not free health care. What else is expensive?

I'm not here to convince you guys, but I can try to explain what has made him what he is today.

I've always been following politic very closely, and I remember, I was still in California, the day he announced his candidacy at the election, it was probably in March or April 2006.
This anonymous guy, coming from nowhere, sounded radically different at my ears. His speech was really innovative from any politics I was used to hear. At the time, the medias didn't know him as well. I remember I said to my coworker something like "Dude! this guy is great!".
Of course I didn't believe he'd go that far, not in the US. He is black, and worse he is humanist!
And by the time, what was unthinkable happened: he got popular. I couldn't follow how it happened precisely, since I was back in France, but I had no doubt in his potential, he has what the country needs: humanism

Today, he is the democrat candidate. He has entered into the big electoral machine. I can see he has a lot of pressure on his shoulders; I noticed he's not exactly the same as the beginning, it's difficult to bear.
I remember a year ago, American medias got very excited about Obama, but today it has besomed the exact opposite, trying to bash him, painting an portrait that is not him.

I do understand, that you as Americans, have negative views on him. It's never fun to bear a presidential election in any country, there is always some sort of nasty hysterical atmosphere.
But I think what would be positive for you, would be to get interested about the opinions from people that have a distant view on the election.

I will be back in California next Autumn. I sincerely hope Americans will have made the right choice.

[xavier]

Indeed, he will raise the taxes.

I'd like to point out again, for those of us that continually forget, that the President does not make laws (which are required to do things like raise taxes). He can submit a budget proposal to Congress, but the 453 men and women in that body will decide if taxes are raised. Which, in theory, means that you and I (the U.S. voting public) will decide whether taxes will go up.

And let's not forget that what is China now was Japan 20 years ago. No one thinks we can keep mounting debt, but the fact is that the federal coffers will increase again once the economy gains steam -- as it will, as it always has done. The current economic climate in the U.S. is one of uncertainty -- as it always is during a Presidential election year. Regardless of who wins in November, the economy will pick up again once the uncertainty is resolved. History bears that out.

[warmi]

The problem is that there is no alternative. The economy is in a nasty situation... Whoever will be president, there is no choice, the money to pay the debts has to come from somewhere.
What else is expensive?

No, just cut spending.
The war is not that expensive … we talking here about about 4-5% of budget so here is your answer what else is expensive .. it is certainly not the war.

He is black, and worse he is humanist!

What does it mean to be a humanist ?
He is just another politician from Chicago, a guy who never broke party lines and has always been “a good and obedient soldierâ€

[Evak]

Obama might not be able to change the taxes alone, but Democrats are notorious for raising them excessively. Obama proposes to almost double taxes and introduce new ones.

Since I'm just starting to get rid of my debts, and was planning to buy a house within the next couple of years. Obama's proposals are likely to ruin those plans the first tax year.

I'm currently in the lower end of $9000 - $12000 a year in taxes, which will almost double to over $16k

House prices if there is a house sales tax would probably go up. And they are already ridiculously high, $400,000 and up for 2 bed 1 bath in the area that I'm renting.

I simply couldn't afford him, even if I do kind of like him. So far as far as I can tell he hasn't stuck to his guns on any policies except health care.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
propose any change in existing
home sales income tax.

OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income
from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays
or reinvests dividends, you will now
be paying nearly 40% of the money
earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that 'higher
tax rates on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market yet
do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750


Under Obama your taxes will
more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation
needed. This is pretty
straight forward.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you? Many families
have lost businesses,
farms and ranches, and homes
that have been in their families
for generations because they could not
afford the inheritance tax.

NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

* New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
2400 square feet

* New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren't high enough already)

* New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
gas, water, electricity)

* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....

* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
so we can receive the same
level of medical care as other
third-world countries!!!

[xavier]

Obama might not be able to change the taxes alone, but Democrats are notorious for raising them excessively. Obama proposes to almost double taxes and introduce new ones.

Raising taxes is not peculiar to Democrats. And regardless of party affiliation, trust me, any member of Congress is going to think more than twice about risking their political careers by rubber-stamping whatever comes up the hill from Pennsylvania Ave.

It's unfortunate that so many pay so much attention to campaign promises -- every single one of them is carefully constructed to pander to whoever the candidate is talking to at the time, and all of them are promptly forgotten once they are made (and none of them actually make it into office).

[Evak]

Thats true Xavier. But with democrats having the congress and presidency things are a bit uncertain. When Bill Clinton was in charge I was paying significantly more taxes but was working full time in game dev. Now I'm running a indie team that barely breaks even and don't have a safety cushion should taxes ramp up.

I'm more of a spectator being a British expat and only a permanent resident here in California, not a US citizen. But it is interesting to see whats going on, and with the UK's decline in the last 10 years, I'm not as patriotic as I used to be. I'm pretty disappointed with how low things have fallen in the UK, and seeing Obama as being another Blair makes me worry about the future here too.

[Lord Alexion]

Well, I've read the topic and would like to contribute my two cents about it:

Just stating who am I and where my political view of the world is centered, I'm a middle-class citizen from São Paulo, Brazil.

And I'll say: Was I an American citizen, I would rather vote for Obama a TRILLION times over McCain.

First: because of their views on foreign policies. Even if it was my country, I wouldn't EVER agree with those kinds of Napoleonic "vibes" I've been feeling emanating from the US the past few years. War is BAD. Dominance by force is BAD. I may sound utopical here, but I believe in the day where humankind will be socially evolved enough so we can solve all problems through diplomacy. Yea, yea, I dream of world peace. shame on me, innocent, little me... oh well

Second: Obama's position on stem-cell research. I believe humankind can and MUST do all in its power to push forward medical and biotechnological advance as far and as quick as possible. Sorry if I may offend someone here, but all this religion-based bio-ethical C**P really makes me FURIOUS. We should aim for the stars, we should be striving for immortality, not being held back by 12th-century ideals. And I would vote for anyone who's supportive of free and with the least level of monitoring and regulation possible stem-cell (including embryonic) research. McCain is more like "OK, so everybody wants stem cell research, so let's not make it illegal so we can control it better", while Obama's like "wheeee let's ROCK'N'ROLL, BABY!!!". Needless to say, I like the latter A LOT MORE.

Third: Obama's position on abortion and LGBT rights. I say to HELL with old-fashioned moral conventions, we are in the brink of a new age, one where MEN will direct the destiny of MEN, not CHURCHES. Being against abortion or same-sex marriage is holding back a little something I like to call SOCIAL EVOLUTION. Only by becoming a secular society, doing the right thing because IT IS THE RIGHT THING rather than because someone told me I'll burn in a pit of fire for all eternity after I die, by evolving our own moral compasses and leaving behind useless traditions and nonsensical morals, we can truly step towards everlasting peace - and evolution as a whole.

Fourth: Gun control policies of both. Yea, I'm an anti-gun supporter. and VERY PROUD OF IT. less guns, less murders. and that's a FACT.

Also: Obama's a blatant speaker against lobbying, and I can't say I disagree with him. It's the first time I ever saw any political personality from any country to speak openly about the issue, it was always something like an "accepted evil" from the part of society as a whole, like "it's the real world, money talks, what can we do?". This surely scored some points with me.

Well that's all I can think about at the top of my hat. Surely more points can appear on time, even FOR McCain. As an example, I'm very fond of his cigarette tax proposition. But I'm suspicious, i'd love ANY kind of overtaxation of tobacco. preferrably the kind that drives tobacco companies out of the WORLD, for that matter. LOL.


_____________________

[warmi]

Just stating who am I and where my political view of the world is centered, I'm a middle-class citizen from São Paulo, Brazil.

Well, I guess there is a reason why USA is different than , say Brazil.
All I can say is I am glad you won't get a chance to vote.

[Lord Alexion]

thank you for being such a nice guy

[warmi]

thank you for being such a nice guy

Believe it or not, I am being nice.
I just don't share your political views, that's all.

[Lord Alexion]

oh okay then (NOT being ironic, just so you know)

care to ellaborate?

[warmi]

War is BAD. Dominance by force is BAD

This is simply not true.
For instance, the reason behind having Police is to dominate by force ( if everything else fails.)

Obama's position on stem-cell research

No problem here.

Third: Obama's position on abortion and LGBT rights.

No problem here.

Fourth: Gun control policies of both.

Short of getting rid of parts of the constitution , it cannot be done.
Of course, it matters not because the constitution simply enumerates the rights and the right to self-defense is not something that can be granted by any government – it can only be taken away by a tyrannical one.

Also: Obama's a blatant speaker against lobbying

Nothing wrong with lobbying if it is done in the open. It is considered free speech.

But I'm suspicious, i'd love ANY kind of overtaxation of tobacco. preferrably the kind that drives tobacco companies out of the WORLD, for that matter

That’s not your call to make. It is simply none of your business what people do in their free time.

[Lord Alexion]

War is BAD. Dominance by force is BAD

This is simply not true.
For instance, the reason behind having Police is to dominate by force ( if everything else fails.)

That's a somewhat deviated interpretation. What the police does is to enforce a set of rules created for the common good of society. Subjugation of a military weaker state for economic interests of a stronger one is something WAY different. Are you saying you would agree if, in a hypothetical future, the United States achieves a level of cultural, military and economical dominance over the civilized world that would make Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler crawl in their tombs with envy?

Fourth: Gun control policies of both.

Short of getting rid of parts of the constitution , it cannot be done.
Of course, it matters not because the constitution simply enumerates the rights and the right to self-defense is not something that can be granted by any government – it can only be taken away by a tyrannical one.

Well. Gun possession is always a touchy issue... heh. But you really think that is should be the citizen's duty to protect oneself and our loved ones against hostile threats? one of main reasons of a state existance is to provide such protection. In eons past, our ancestors banded togheter to defend themselves from wild animals and enemy bands. Can you imagine what would happen if there was no law enforcement, and we were left with the task of protecting our households? all-out war, that's what.

Now, if you say you need to carry a gun so you would compliment the states INEFFICIENCY in protecting you, then the problem is in that inefficiency. What people need is a state that provides a back-end so people WON'T BECOME criminals, and have the structure necessary to fight the ones that do become. That kind of advocation is barking at the wrong tree. Vigilantism doesn't solve crime issues.

Also: Obama's a blatant speaker against lobbying

Nothing wrong with lobbying if it is done in the open. It is considered free speech.

Kinda. If you truly think about it, lobbying is little more than a fancy kind of bribery. It's all about using financial and economical power to influence politics in a way that favors not the people as a whole, but some big-shot corporation or wealthy individual. this is not free speech, this is a subversion of democracy.

But I'm suspicious, i'd love ANY kind of overtaxation of tobacco. preferrably the kind that drives tobacco companies out of the WORLD, for that matter

That’s not your call to make. It is simply none of your business what people do in their free time.

Not quite. if smoking was something that only bothered the smoker, it would be one thing. But picture this: nowadays, around 18% of the world population smokes. Let's say you put 50 randomly selected people in a room, it'd be likely that 9 or 10 of those people would be smokers. Then, one of them lights up his cigarrette, followed almost immediately by the others, since smokers tend to have this internal trigger that prompts them to light a cigarrette if they see someone smoking. What would happen in the next 3 minutes? the room would be filled with smoke, and the other 40 poor souls in there would be obliged to inhale that smoke, unless they react with violence (because smokers in general DON'T CARE about second-hand smokers. If they're not in a non-smoking zone, they'll exhale smoke till their lungs burn out no matter if there's an asthmatic 3-year old dying by their feet).

Methaphores aside, in a way that's what happens. What I mean is, a single smoker have the ability to bother a LOT of people around them, and they almost always don't care!! When you don't smoke, you almost everyday is put in a situation where you don't have other choice than to inhale someone else's smoke, be it in a bus stop, traffic crossing, a business meeting, or if you want to enjoy a night out on a club or so.

Even your friends! it's REALLY rare for someone to have only non-smoking friends, and then you have to put up with their smoke so you can hang out with them. So yea, I'm all in favor of restricting tobacco. You can do whatever you want in your free time, sure, but as long as you don't bother other people. And that includes the open street.

ALSO: If you have an extreme overtaxation of tobacco products, the price of a pack goes up. That makes people smoke less, AND increases government revenue, which can be used to treat tobacco victims and state-sponsored conscientization programs to inhibit people to START smoking. And don't you say this doesn't have a positive effect in society, please.


__________________

[KungFooMasta]

I don't know what laws they have in Brazil, but in all states I've lived in, smoking was never a big issue. I forget when, but some time ago our state made a law against smoking in public areas, you cannot smoke inside public buildings. You also cannot smoke within 50 (I think?) feet of a building's entrance. Granted thats not always followed, but I haven't had any problems with it, nor do I know anybody complaining of inhaling tons of smoke every time they go to the local grocery store.

I do have friends that smoke, but they do it away from me, and outside of their homes. They do not reak of smoke, and it doesn't affect me at all to hang out with them, in fact I've lived with a smoker and never smelled it. (he isn't a light smoker either, he'll smoke in between LAN games outside on the porch, haha)

It actually makes me mad listening to all the anti drug commercials on the radio. Do they have any effect? I highly doubt it. All they do is waste our tax dollars. If you notice, they tend to target teens and discourage them from smoking. But you rarely hear commercials that discourage drinking. Drinking is a lot more harmful, and can easily result in death. Either way, the war on drugs is via education, not a stupid 20 second commercial aimed to make smoking seem incredibly disgusting. Tax the hell out of cigarettes and use the income to better our education.

[warmi]

Subjugation of a military weaker state for economic interests of a stronger one is something WAY different.

Dominance by force could mean many things … it has no inherent links to subjugation.
It could be used as a way to subjugate or to liberate.

Are you saying you would agree if, in a hypothetical future, the United States achieves a level of cultural, military and economical dominance over the civilized world that would make Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler crawl in their tombs with envy?

So ? Dominance alone is not necessarily bad – Stalin and Hitler were known not for establishing dominance but for misusing it.

But you really think that is should be the citizen's duty to protect oneself and our loved ones against hostile threats?

It is not a duty , it is a right.

Now, if you say you need to carry a gun so you would compliment the states INEFFICIENCY in protecting you, then the problem is in that inefficiency.

Nope. No police force in the world can guarantee protection – that’s not their job. They are there to apprehend those who infringe the law and to bring them to justice.

If a criminal is not persuaded by the threat of being prosecuted for his crime – the only thing standing between you and a potential assailant is your ability to defend yourself.
There are times when there is simply no time to call 911.

It's all about using financial and economical power to influence politics in a way that favors not the people as a whole, but some big-shot corporation or wealthy individual. this is not free speech, this is a subversion of democracy.

Distinction without a difference.
Most people who vote, base their choice on their view of how a specific policy would affect their lives.

That makes people smoke less, AND increases government revenue, which can be used to treat tobacco victims and state-sponsored conscientization programs to inhibit people to START smoking. And don't you say this doesn't have a positive effect in society, please.

A society has no inherent value of its own, and only exists as the most efficient way to protect individual rights.
In other words, I don’t give a damn what makes for a healthy society … just like a don’t give a damn what you do in your own house at night, your personal diet or your sexual habits.
It is none of my business.

Of course, there are rules governing social interaction – some of them dictate the conditions under which it is permissible to engage in activities like smoking or drinking in situations where such behavior has the potential to negatively affect others, but that’s vastly different from the idea of “social engineeringâ€

[syedhs]

So ? Dominance alone is not necessarily bad – Stalin and Hitler were known not for establishing dominance but for misusing it.

Haha warmi, you are always in denial I am not envy of anything, but USA IS misusing its dominance in international politics no matter how much you want to deny or spin it. In fact, I (and the rest of the world) would love to see the world in bi-polar instead of unipolar order as we are seeing now. That is why you get to see some stupid people like Bush dictating something defies the basic logic, but can still stand with all smiles and dignity. And if you are still unsure, then you can apply the same logic where monopolist is evil etc etc.

Okay I dont know, but I begin to someone objecting - 'spell me the basic logics being defied you just talked about...'

In the end, remember this (especially you are a Star Wars freak), "Luke.. remember this - search your own feeling, you will know which is the truth".

[warmi]

would love to see the world in bi-polar instead of unipolar order as we are seeing now

Well, go ahead and create some sort of new Soviet Union or something .... I don't really care - I certainly won't have to suffer because of that, someone else will.

You have your pick - China or perhaps a new incarnation of the old Soviet Union ... both are very eager to play the game.

[syedhs]

would love to see the world in bi-polar instead of unipolar order as we are seeing now

You have your pick - China or perhaps a new incarnation of the old Soviet Union ... both are very eager to play the game.

Okay China is a good pick. Well maybe you are teasing or something, but the result will be better for the rest of the world. At least the UN security council will not be dominated by one superpower.

[syd]

Okay China is a good pick. Well maybe you are teasing or something, but the result will be better for the rest of the world. At least the UN security council will not be dominated by one superpower.

It's already the case. China has gained a lot of influence, I mean massive influence.
I don't think the world will be bipolar as it used to be during the cold war; It seems the world tends to become multipolar.
The US, China, Europe, India, The Middle-east, Russia: all have influence.

The US as a previous superpower, China as an emerging one, Europe unifying politically, Russia in this context of the energy crisis (provides lot of energy) The middle Est providing oil to the world, those last years even Iran has proven it has a piece of it too...
It's ridiculous to believe that the US today is still dictating its will to the world.

[warmi]

It's ridiculous to believe that the US today is still dictating its will to the world.

It never were.

[syedhs]

I don't think the world will be bipolar as it used to be during the cold war; It seems the world tends to become multipolar.

The world will be bipolar:-

1) On one side, it is EU + USA + the close allies. This can be witnessed recently - Sarkozy is now the EU president and already proclaim USA as its good friend (or something like that). India + Israel are the close allies. Australia may not join as the leadership has changed recently and Kevin Ruud seem to be making a lot more sense nowadays.

2) Russia, China and Iran is already in another side - the first two seem to agree much on the issues brought on the UN security council table. Both countries are also eager to give the benefit of doubt to recent Iranian nuclear issue whilst the others (EU countries) and USA are very suspicous of Iran's ambition of building a real nuclear power. Iran purchase much of its weapon from Russia (and maybe France).

Maybe you dont mean this, but Middle East is definitely not a superpower - it is just a region. However, the strongest country in term of military is Israel, and this country is almost 99.99% confirmed to have nuclear arsenal. And they dont get scrutinized like Iran because they didn't sign NPT. How convenient - and guess what, they get their weapon supply from USA. I can go on and on on this, but I am afraid I will lose friends here

It is very much like WW1 & WW2 with many countries get involved in it - but ultimately there are always two parties fighting with each other.

[warmi]

How convenient - and guess what, they get their weapon supply from USA.

You mean the French ?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Isrhist.html

[syd]

@syedhs: I agree with some of your points. what I mean by multipolar is more about multiple influences, not about multiple superpowers. So the way you see it would be more like another cold war right? I believe it would take some other form, (a frozen war?). such conflict must also keep being at an economic/diplomatic level, which is what I can more likely conceive. The balance of powers is indeed already visible today. Despite what the French president said, the situation in Europe is a bit complicated. Europe kept good relations with Russia, and tries to do as well with China; for example that same French president decided not to meet the Dalai Lama because China asked not to. The whole idea of the constitution is supposedly to keep being independent, as we see there are always constraints. The Middle East is de facto influent, with it's resources, and culturally also.
These are some of my thoughts, but I really don't like that discussion, since another bipolar world simply means the end... let's move on
About Iran, the weapon supply comes indeed from Russia. The only time France supplied Iran was in the beginning of the 90's, during the war Iran/Irak.

@warmi: nice try