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.
Stimulus bill is a complete failure, not because Obama is black, but because it failed and anyone with half a brain knows you cant fight poverty by creating policies designed to increase it.
ACA is a complete failure, again, not because Obama is black, but because it was destined to fail.
The whole notion that Obamas policies are failing because he's black could only be argued if you believe black people fail. Conservatives dont believe this is true, only Democrats, they are the only ones who make an issue out of him being black.
Obama failed, just like the notion of this thread.
Iraq is being taken over by ISIL and Iran, because Obama is black.
Yemen has fallen to Iranian backed rebels, because Obama is black.
The US poverty rate is at a fifty year high, because Obama is black.
Hilary and Bill Clinton's foundation is a get rich, influence peddling scam, because Obama is black.
I say maybe because some segment of the media-academia-entertainment complex will always see racism under every rock, in every tree, in every uttered word, etc. So 10, 50 even 100 years from, those same dolts will still be singing the one song they know - because racist.
In general though, when viewed through the lens of history, which shows that acrimony between the Legislative and Executive is intentional, by-design, and working as intended, Obama will just be a President whose party lost control of the Legislature and made rubber stamp government harder, same as every other President who had at minimum a Senate majority of the opposing party.
Thomas Jefferson lamented acrimony between the parties in his correspondence to John Adams. And seriously, Obama has faced nothing like Andrew Jackson did in his first term from 1832 to 1836, or obviously Lincoln, and then Grover Cleveland after that. Cleveland is the last president who actually cut employment levels in government ON PURPOSE, to shrink government. Yeah, want to talk about acrimony with Congress?
Viewed through any normal historical lens, Republican opposition to Obama since 2010 is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or even unexpected. Thoughtful, intellectually honest historians will know this, while race bating morons with axes to grind will not.
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?
Depends upon who is writing the history. It certainly shouldn't. While I am sure a small amount of resistance to him is racial mostly it is because of his policies and how the republican party disagrees with them. I think Hillary would have encountered the same resistance had she been elected. Of course then it would have been blamed on republicans hate women.
No, they will see thru the democrat's political hype for the pathetic race baiting that it was, and is.
Exactly. Talking points, only hold relevance for a very short period of time. As we go through history, talking points get forgotten and people start to look at the statistics and true results of the period involved.
Historians will have a very hard time arguing America is full of racist while then celebrating the first black President..
Lets look back just a decade ago, at Clinton.
Clinton fought against the Republican Congress but eventually gave into many of their demands to cut welfare, balance the budget etc, but history reports Clinton as one of the greatest Presidents for doing this.
no one remembers the acts of Congress just a decade ago. For the OP to preclude a decade from now things will be different because the President is black is racism, on behalf of the OP.
No; from what I see Democrats has the party that leadership has become a race of what candidate can promise the most to get votes. Much the way much of Europe and especially Greece went for years. I always think choice is good and do not want a race to the bottom for votes. Nothing is ever free as always.
No, because Democrats will continue to support and promote racism and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of it for far more than the next 50 years.
Some history books will reflect "republican obstructionism", liberal civil rights movements and "the greatest president - Obama" and other fantasy's, others won't.
America will look back at the facts and laugh at people like the OP who pushed this fake racism narrative to cover up the gross negligence and inadequacies of the POTUS that you blindly supported even after being proven to be a fool.
I hate the word Obstructionism, the president has no power in proposing legislation, Congress does not obstruct the President, the President is truly the Junior partner when it comes to Domestic policy. Congress has every right to notlisten to the President, people act as if the President is the boss of Congress and they must go along with what he/she wants.
And no it's not unprecedented Tyler, Lincoln, A. Johnson, and Truman has similar conflict with congress.
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.
