So what if your President is a Young Black, Muslim, Lesbian with a Transgender wife!

Well, our Belgian Prime Minister (we're a kingdom, so he's our number one) is a 'homosexual Italian immigrant'. How about that?
And a socialist on top of that.

What can I say? He's competent for the job.
And around here, socialism doesn't have the derogatory connotation some Americans attribute to it.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Personally, I wouldn't have cared if he was a purple talking dog who spent his days with his head parked between his rear legs if his policies were good. They're not. That's why I voted against him, and why I'm not looking forward to four more years of destructive, domineering policies.

reply to post by LordGoofus

It was 90% showboating, 9% meaningless motivational phrases "We're strong! ra ra ra! America, f* yeah! woohoo! Imma give everyone free chicken wings! heehaw!", and 1% of actual intellectual thought ("We need to fix the budget and we'll do this by doing X, Y and Z."). It was almost like everyone thought they were voting for the winner of "Americas Got Talent" instead of the next leader of the worlds current superpower.

I have to say I noticed this as well, it was more like watching “America’s got a new top President Strictly on Ice” rather than a serious debate about the future of the nation.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

reply to post by darkhorserider

Actually, you've kind of emphasized the transgender part, and that would be a problem with me. If he/she was born transgendered, then fine, but if they chose to change sexes at some point in their life, that would be a deal breaker for me. It goes back to the resolute and decisiveness that is necessary in a leader. I wouldn't vote for anybody that had made that choice rather than stick it out with the cards they were dealt.

Excellent,

That is exactly the kind of answer I am looking for thank you.

I am not trying to expose anyone as raceist or homophobic but rather how people’s views and cultural backgrounds influence their voting. Your answer is exactly what I am looking for so thank you I found it very interesting. I can totally get how you would take that view, I think I would take the same view.

reply to post by darkhorserider

I see your point, although I would assume that one has to be pretty resolute and decisive to take the step for a sex-change operation.
How determined must you be to go there?

reply to post by Movhisattva


Very true! I actually thought of that as I was typing it, and then something else hit me. I have never known a person to take that drastic step that wasn't severely emotionally compromised in other ways. So, while it does show some serious commitment to take that step, it would still be a deal-breaker for me.

Only the surgical ones, I could care less if they were born with both genitalia, or if they were born male and homosexual or female and homosexual, or bisexual or any other orientation. It isn't the religious aspect, or the sexual aspect that makes it a deal breaker, it is just personal experience and a distrust of their decision-making.

Originally posted by LordGoofus
It was 90% showboating, 9% meaningless motivational phrases "We're strong! ra ra ra! America, f* yeah! woohoo! Imma give everyone free chicken wings! heehaw!", and 1% of actual intellectual thought ("We need to fix the budget and we'll do this by doing X, Y and Z."). It was almost like everyone thought they were voting for the winner of "Americas Got Talent" instead of the next leader of the worlds current superpower.

Thank you! I noticed this, from all sides. I had to take a long hiatus from Facebook, as it had gotten to the point where all I was seeing was rabid politician fanboys arguing for one candidate or another based solely on hose charismatic they were, how good looking the person thought they were, etc.

But, that's nothing new. I think back to when Romney was choosing his running mate. Several pundits through out Chris Christie's name as a potential pick. What did I see from those opposing that decision? Not "Christie's has done X, Y, and Z, and thus his policies are a bad choice." No, I saw "we don't want a fat VP!"

Go back further. Bush was lambasted by man because he was a poor public speaker. Yes, there was a great deal of criticism leveled against Bush because of his politics and decisions, but the majority (that I personally witnessed among my liberal friends) were of the "he's stupid and a bad speaker" variety.

Too many people are choosing their politician of choice not based on what the person stands for, says, does, or politically believes. They are going for or against a politician based on stupid, irrelevant, characteristics. Christie being overweight doesn't mean he's a bad politician. Bush not being a good public speak doesn't mean he is stupid. On the flipside, Obama being a racial minority doesn't mean he is automatically a good choice.

Policies matter, not this superficial popularity crap.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I will admit to trying to be slightly light hearted with this thread, I know how the topics of homosexuality and race can stir people on ATS but really I want to know what people think about this.

Yeah - but you've got fat chance holding a rational discussion on american politics in this place!!

Who cares if you president is a bisexual transgender Asian, so long as the policies are all good in our society this should not matter so why is it so obvious that it does.

The religious (for which read x-ian religion only - or at least a lot of people claiming to be x-ian) cares - that is who.

and probably some others but they don't get as much air time.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I find that most people, whether you want to believe it or not, don't really care, nor do they want to know, what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

...and history tells us that the U.S. has already had a gay President. A gentleman by the name of James Buchanan. Check it out. Whether he was Muslim or not? Couldn't tell ya, and I don't give a hoot, nor a holler...

ETA: Gotta ask... Obama won, and easily... Why ask whether or not Americans care? Obviously the majority don't care enough not to vote for him... Your hypothetical candidate were he or she qualified, or at least telegenic, I suppose they might win, too. The precedence has, as they say, been set. Two terms worth of it.

Originally posted by BacknTime
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

So you believe people voted for Obama just because of his skin color and not for his ideals? well that's exactly what has happened...why do you think nobody noticed Ron Paul?
]

Seems like a question for the GOP,folks would've, but instead they decided Mitt was their man.

Republican party; Y U NO LIKE RON PAUL????

Seem Ron Paul won though, got himself a nice stash of cash at everyone who supported him expense.

Muslim I don't really care, it's not an issue for me.

Mormon on the other hand...maybe it's because I don't know any, that their religion is (seems) based on some wacko and a liar and that most mormons live in red neck states...

That's just my opinion which could be wrong.

One thing I know I'm not wrong about is that in 2012, religion should have nothing to do with the president's choices and ideas.

reply to post by theMediator


...and what is a "red neck state" pray tell?

Mormons are, for your information, for the most part genuinely nice people. There are, of course, as with any group some that are not so nice...or wacko...or whatever.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


To me most of that would not matter. What I do require is someone who is honest, has real core beliefs, and can not be blackmailed. I also judge a candidate by the actions of their supporters.

As to Obama. I know and was part of the political machine he came from. To advance in that machine is the same as joining a gang. You want join, go shoot that person on the corner. Good now we own you and can trust you. That was the primary reason against Obama. I know that is true of those in Chicago. I do not know about elsewhere.

As to supporters. If you know the beliefs of someone's supporters you then really know the candidate. If his supporters are violent, dishonest, routinely commit libel because they can not be held responsible for it in an election, then you will generally find the candidate to be the same.

The only problem in what you listed for me was Muslim. Buddist, Shintoist, or almost any other religion would not matter though I would prefer a honest person with core beliefs and was not religious. There are people like that. The problem with Muslim is it is the only religion I know of that advocates violent conversion. In addition both the Muslim and Jewish religion, if my memory is right, advocates lying to those not of that religion to advance that religion or those that believe in it. That sort of kills the honest requirement. So how could I trust them?