Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2015, 12:20 PM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,540,819 times
Reputation: 22232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
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?
No they won't.

If you are black and it rains when you have scheduled a picnic, it doesn't mean there is racism involved.

Do this. Take a look at the last time healthcare reform was floated, and tell me what the reaction was from the right. (Spoiler - it was when the white Clintons were going for it, yes Bill was white, and it was opposed by the right).

The opposition to Obama's policies are just that, opposition to his policies.

If you feel this isn't true, please show us a policy opposed by the right that wasn't opposed when it was brought up by a white liberal.

The real racism is from the liberals. They are the ones who don't believe black people are capable of simple tasks like getting IDs.

Conservatives, "We need voter ID."

Liberals, "What!!! If you do that, you'll be stopping black people from voting. They don't have the ability to perform tasks like getting IDs. Sure, the white people can do it, but not those black people."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-24-2015, 12:23 PM
 
13,853 posts, read 5,564,410 times
Reputation: 8534
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
If you are black and it rains when you have scheduled a picnic, it doesn't mean there is racism involved.
So great I had to quote it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar, CA - Coronado, CA
4,477 posts, read 3,282,719 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
This is a serious question.
Not it isn't.

There isn't an ounce of seriousness about it.

The entire premise is a callow screed straight from the pages of DailyKos or ThinkProgress. There are zero facts just a lot of opinion and illinformed opinion at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
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?
The unseriousness started 10 words in with "thinking Americans" as if those who think and will think that Obama was a completely inept and incompetent leader way in over his head are unthinking.

Who knows what historians or political scientists will think, but who really cares. They are not know as the most objective people around. Many are cloistered academics, which these days means they live on islands of liberal group think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
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.
You understand nothing obviously. The Republican Party and all thinking Americans (see I can do that too) want Obama's bad policies to fail because if his policies succeed, America will indeed fail.

Further evidence of the callowness exists in this hilarious accusation of the Republicans being the party of the 1%. Who do you think goes to the $35,500 a plate dinners that Obama flies all over the country to attend? Where did Obama raise a BILLION dollars from run his campaigns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
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?
Dare I point out that the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate and an overwhelming House Majority for most of the 111th Congress? If the Republicans had the ability to be obstructionist, how did Obamacare get passed?

Even when the Democrat numbers were reduced in the Senate, they still ran the show until 2015. The obstruction was Harry Reid who would not put forward any bills, especially ones that Democrats might vote on with the Republicans (Keystone Pipeline, repealing parts of Obamacare, Iran sanctions, etc). It was also Reid who blocked any Republican amendments and blocked the ordinary budget process. Only once in six years of Reid's leadership did a budget pass through the ordinary process as opposed to a continuing resolution. The Senate didn't even propose a budget for four years, let alone vote one.

THAT is obstructionism.

If you think Republicans didn't voice objections to each and everyone of Obama's proposals on substantive grounds, then you really were not paying attention. Give me one example of one proposal that was blocked because Obama was black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
Instead of "rationalized" how about lauded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Uh, no, it doesn't, it means that people will overreact to a question that is asked in seriousness. Nice try at dismissing the question. Nor have you given a single reason to explain the almost unprecedented level of obstructionism faced by this President.
How old are you odanny? When I see words like "unprecedented" I know you are either young or pulling your thought process directly off the leftie blogs. You could not have lived through the Reagan era and seen the level of obstructionism that Reagan faced and make the statement you did with a straight face, or at least not averting your eyes as you said it.

George W Bush faced truly unprecedented levels of obstructionism with his judicial nominees. Only once in the nation's history had a filibuster been used before with a judicial nominee and it was a bipartisan one that lasted a few days. The unprecedented levels of obstructionism with Bush's judicial nominees lasted years and included filibusters on eminently qualified blacks and Hispanics. Will thinking Americans, historians and political scientists look back at the Democrats who did that as the successors to their Democrat pedigree of Jim Crow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. While I appreciate your response, I find it hard to believe that someone would blame President Obama for the racism he has faced in breaking the color barrier, especially since he has worked hard at being "No Drama Obama".
I find it hard to believe that would not blame President Obama for the apparent worsening racism in the country.

It started with the failure of his Justice Department to prosecute the Black Panthers for obvious voter intimmidation and continued on with his involvement in and comments on the Henry Gates, Traeyvon Martin, Ferguson, his speeches indicting white Americans, including his own grandmother, his embracing of the race baiter Sharpton.... He truly has been the most divisive president on race in the 20th/21st centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
When Obama was elected he had a 70% approval rate. Once he became president he became an entirely different person from candidate Obama.

The people then voted in people to block his actions.

If president Obama had been the person candidate Obama said he was the (D)'s keep the House and Senate and things don't get blocked.

Obama is the reason alone for things getting blocked.
Not much you and I agree on, but I agree on this, if even for different reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Aztlan
2,686 posts, read 1,765,600 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
And while some wealthy corporate shareholders and businessmen are conservative, like the Koch brothers who are basically the embodiment of America's evil plutocracy, some are actually quite liberal. Both Bill Gates and Warren Bufett, two of the wealthiest people alive, are openly liberal.
Don't forget George Soros, he is a big leftist and without his money no leftist has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. But both parties are addicted to money in their campaigns. I think that it is high time for a constitutional amendment seriously capping the amount of money spent to conduct a campaign. Obama spent well over $1,000,000,000 to attain re-election, and to politically blind people such as odanny this money must have come solely from "rich Republicans" - LOL!

The amount of money spent by both parties is disgraceful. It is part of the reason why democracy inhibits change because the game is played only by rich people like Obama, Hillary, Romney, etc... and their wealthy donors. Hillary pretends to be "of the people" by hobnobbing over a $5.00 fake taco at Chipotle, when her heart is set on the later $30,000/plate dinners with her leftist friends with big pockets. That is what is killing us, there is no room for someone who identifies with the American worker to get within spitting distance of the Oval Office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,711,133 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
This is what you call a "false equivalency"

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. While I appreciate your response, I find it hard to believe that someone would blame President Obama for the racism he has faced in breaking the color barrier, especially since he has worked hard at being "No Drama Obama".
I'm not sure I'd give Obama much credit for any of the deterioration of race relations. To be honest, he's kept himself aloof from the most of the ugliness and has tended to take the high road. It is not President Obama tossing out accusations of racism at every turn. It's a lot of the liberal media and more outspoken Democrats who like to pull the race card on Obama's behalf.

But I will blame Obama for being lousy at compromise and negotiation. Wikipedia says he's already the king of Executive Order, but that's not the real issue. The bigger issue is the kinds of things he issues Executive Orders for. Amnesty is only the most blatant example of Obama bypassing both Congress and public opinion to do what he believes is right. To a large degree, I even agree with granting limited amnesty -- but doing it by Executive Order is wrong. It's creating something of a crisis of Constitutionality. If the POTUS can just issue an EO for anything under the sun, then what's the point in even having a Congress at all?? And the reason he resorts to Executive Orders is because he can't get his way in Congress. Obama seems to believe that his status as Presidents entitles him to get his way no matter what. Even if he believes that just a little bit, that's a huge problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 01:58 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
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?
"]This is a serious question." No it isn't

"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?"

OK. I' ll play.

What Was the reason the dems obstructed Reagan, H Bush and W Bush? Racism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,881,188 times
Reputation: 4512
So separation of powers is now "obstructionism"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Inland Northwest
1,793 posts, read 1,438,368 times
Reputation: 1848
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I'm not sure I'd give Obama much credit for any of the deterioration of race relations. To be honest, he's kept himself aloof from the most of the ugliness and has tended to take the high road. It is not President Obama tossing out accusations of racism at every turn. It's a lot of the liberal media and more outspoken Democrats who like to pull the race card on Obama's behalf.
What, what, what!? Aloof? Take the high road?

Gates? That was a high road? Beer Summit FTW.
Trayvon? "If I had a son", that's the high road?
Brown? Aloof?

My Brother's Keeper is aloof?

No, its his appointee, Eric Holder and the DOJ tossing out accusations at every turn. And, being wrong...at every turn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 02:08 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,668,264 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The Obama presidency will be remembered as an era of undoing much of the progress this nation had previously made at eliminating racism. Very unfortunate.
The problem with this claim is if Obama had been white, little of what he has done would be controversial. The whole "Kenyan" meme is because he is black, same with the chimp, African native, watermelons growing on the White House lawn imagery, etc. Remember Sarah Palin alluding that Obama was a terrorist and encouraging guns at her rallies? Some thought she was literally trying to get him killed.

It is easy to say you are not racist. Anyone can say it. But time and again, you hear people say "yes, I would support a black, as long as it was the "right" black". The same has been said of women even though they are more than 50% of the population. The convenient thing about saying that is there will never be a "right" black (or woman) for them.

The fury that followed Obama's election was almost immediate. Republicans opposed everything he did, right from the night of the election. Democrats had done nothing like this previously, even through the Bush V. Gore disaster. It wasn't until Iraq that Democrats loudly opposed Bush. Watching Rumsfield make jokes on late night TV about finding no weapons after seeing so many soldiers die was too much.

I doubt Republicans will ever actually nominate a black, at least in any of our lifetimes. A woman is equally doubtful. They will toss token candidates in the pool that never make it to the end.

Obama has not "undone" progress toward eliminating racism. He has exposed just how much racism there is that no one will admit.

I think fifty years from now, the country will see the Obama presidency very differently than some do now. And those on the right that have been so ugly will deny their participation like it never happened (for those still alive). Much of this is documented though and there will be movies where the worst of them will get their rightful place in history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top