Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
I'm not a Republican, but this is a ridiculous question.
Let's get clear. We are not a parliamentary democracy. We do not cobble together coalitions that guarantee that the leader's policy get rubber stamped by his own party. It has never been that way, nor should it.
Why? Because when the party in power controls both the executive and legislative branch, it does so pretty hare-brained things, whether it's Republican or Democrat.
Instead, the two parties are supposed to -- get this -- come to an agreement. As in compromised.
What's more, I would argue that any voter with a freaking brain in his head would really desire divided government. Unless you're a knuckle-dragging halfwit mesmerized by the spew coming out of FoxNews or the HuffPo, a person of reasonable intelligence knows that if either party had their way, we'd have a bankrupt autocracy on our hands.
So quit listening to the propaganda and learn to think for yourself. Make political parties work for your vote, rather than blindly giving it to them like some sheep.
For president? Sorry, but no, Republicans will not nominate a black woman for president. Nope.
I don't care what any party does, because in the end nothing will change. That said, I find your statement quite incredible. Do you have a crystal ball that shows you the future? Right now the GOP has two young Hispanics running for their nomination and by all appearances Ben Carson will be running. The GOP is the big tent, while the Dems have only an old white woman known for screaming. The GOP has a well-trod history. They don't jump on bandwagons based on physical characteristics that have nothing to do with the job. They nominate the person they think is the best at the time. They are not always very good at this - Bush, McCain, Romney come to mind. The fact remains that if the best person happens to be black, they will get the GOP nomination. I don't think that Carson is the right one, but that is no reason to hold something against the GOP if he isn't their nominee. Obama got the Dem nomination because he is a black man. There were better Democratic candidates. We have really sunk to a new low if we are nominating people based on the color of their skin.
I don't care what any party does, because in the end nothing will change. That said, I find your statement quite incredible. Do you have a crystal ball that shows you the future? Right now the GOP has two young Hispanics running for their nomination and by all appearances Ben Carson will be running. The GOP is the big tent, while the Dems have only an old white woman known for screaming. The GOP has a well-trod history. They don't jump on bandwagons based on physical characteristics that have nothing to do with the job. They nominate the person they think is the best at the time. They are not always very good at this - Bush, McCain, Romney come to mind. The fact remains that if the best person happens to be black, they will get the GOP nomination. I don't think that Carson is the right one, but that is no reason to hold something against the GOP if he isn't their nominee. Obama got the Dem nomination because he is a black man. There were better Democratic candidates. We have really sunk to a new low if we are nominating people based on the color of their skin.
You are a perfect example. No, Republicans will not nominate a black or a woman as president. They might, possibly, maybe sometime in the future let a black be VP.
Your claim: "They don't jump on bandwagons based on physical characteristics that have nothing to do with the job."
1. You nominated Sarah Palin as VP. A woman whose shocking lack of knowledge was incredible to behold. Watch her interviews.
2. "...the Dems have only an old white woman..." Hillary Clinton would be younger than Ronald Reagan or John McCain. Why does Hillary's age matter if Reagan and McCain were acceptable for Republicans? And what's that about physical characteristics?
3. You say Republicans nominate the person they think is best for the job, then say they aren't good at it. If that's the case, why use that as a justification?
4. Ben Carson will never be more than a token candidate. The odds of Rubio being nominated beyond VP are nil. Rafael Cruz is nothing more than a flame thrower and he won't be nominated either.
5. The GOP nomination will go to either the white guy Jeb Bush or the white guy with no degree, Scott Walker. Yes, Republicans will justify a presidential nominee with no college degree as long as he is a white guy. Even though virtually every government job, from a secretary to a military officer, requires a college degree.
Republicans will ultimately always nominate a white man for president even though they are only 30% of the US population.
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
Most opposition to Obama is based on his politics not his skin color. He is half white racially anyway. So the GOP didn't oppose Bill Clinton and other fully white Democrat presidents in the past? This is where the claims of racism on the part of Republicans fails. By the way it isn't the Republicans that are the party of the rich but the Democrats.
Most opposition to Obama is based on his politics not his skin color. He is half white racially anyway. So the GOP didn't oppose Bill Clinton and other fully white Democrat presidents in the past? This is where the claims of racism on the part of Republicans fails. By the way it isn't the Republicans that are the party of the rich but the Democrats.
He's still very much an ignorant democrat just like all the rest, don't try to distance yourself... he's all yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
