I doubt Hillary will win the Dem nomination. She is down, but not yet out. President Obama is half white and half black. He has a very nice skin color. He is very intelligent and uber charismatic. But his big gvt and spend like a drunken sailor policies are the key problems. I know lots of Latinos that cannot decide if Obama is a bigot or a racist. They believe in America first, and are honestly sick and tired of their white friends, family, and coworkers always being blamed for every problem in the galaxy. GW Bush also spent too much money (greatly increasing the federal debt), and current establishment politicians are wasting our financial future with one spending spree after another. A majority of American citizens are beyond done with the lot of them. So no, Obama's skin color is NOT within the top ten reasons for the growing insurgency.
your coworkers opinion does not represent the millions of latinos in this country.( your coworker is most likely older, and more privileged than most of his latino counterparts) just based off of policies left wing politics tends to favor minorities, the poor, and women(to try and get them on a fair playing field as their white male counterparts because of bad history and laws) including latinos which is 1 reason why most white men are republican.(because they arent really too interested and spending americas money, most of which they possess righting the wrongs of the past... because they've benefited greatly from them, lol. they believe minorities should just work to make up for the huge wealth/other gaps that have been created as a result of extreme racism, slavery, and sexism) there are 2 main reasons why the right dislike obama as much as they do, 1# is because he's leftwing but his race also plays a major role as well.(if obama was white alot of the obstructionism that happened in congress wouldnt have occured and its unlikely the teaparty would have even done as well as it did voting members into congress in part just to oppose obama) in america a half black man is identified and identifies as black, largely because of the history. during jim crow and slavery they were in the same group as everyone else who was of color. it was a law in america in the past that if you were 1/8 black, you were black.(for the purposes of slavery/jim crow/etc) google huey p newton, hes mixed yet was the leader of the black panther party because america saw him at that time and at the present as black and he lived the experience of a black man in white america. not saying i agree with the democrats, their policies, or their methods though.
I don't think Obama being a minority has much of anything to do with it really. I do think it's a reaction to his Presidency though, certainly, (and the overall trend that his Presidency continued on from its predecessors, with of course some zig-zags on certain issues). I think there'd been speculation of Biden making a late entry for Dems, not sure if that's still feasible at the moment but with the other candidates not being establishment enough and/or doing rather poorly... it might still be a relatively good option for the DNC.
most whites wont tell you that his race has anything to do with the pushback against him from the right, you will hear a very different story from minorities. kind of like how whites and minorities have different views on the role racism plays in this country in general, whites tend not to see the racial issues for several different reasons. pretty sure its way too late for biden to enter now and i dont think he could even get the voters to get elected at this point but he would have been a great 2nd option for people to vote for who may not trust hillary clinton but still want a normal candidate who can get things done in the white house and work with the other side. even tho id love to see the poor and disadvantaged minorities helped out, the environment saved, and all the other leftwing fantasy stuff, i dont think a far left candidate is a good idea for this country. you have to meet the republicans half way and work with them, not go all the way extreme if you expect things to actually change and get done. and a far left president would just make the republicans more extreme, pushback harder, and want more candidates like cruz.
How do you figure? The Tea Party started largely in opposition to things like TARP and percieved over-taxation, that kicked off largely with GW Bush. People were upset about the policies, and the Tea Party has never really talked about race as being a factor in the first place. The obstructionism likewise was due to certain republicans deciding that was a good tactic (it wasn't, but whatever) in response to the Obama administration and the previous Democratic congress basically ramming anything they wanted through Congress. I mean, what it seems to me is that you're saying these people are doing it because of some hidden Racism. It'd be one thing if it was open Racism, but... Basically what I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe either the Tea Party of Republican Obstructionists would have behaved differently if it was someone of a whiter skin color doing the same things. Unless you're privy to information I don't have.
its complicated, its not simple and direct racism thats going on and most republicans and teaparty members arent actually racist themselves. the type of racism that goes on now alot of the times is minorities being passed for jobs, poor mostly minority neighborhoods not being supported properly by the government,(flint for example) the republican party becoming more extreme and opposing obama as if he was much more left wing than he actually is, etc. its very deep and complex though imo, its not simple, and there are alot of issues related to the subject.
Minorities can read other people's hearts and minds? Or are you saying that right-wing minorities are racist against Obama?
polls have been taken, whites believe that there is much less racism in america today than minorities do.
Bear in mind that there is an anti establishment trend worldwide - and politics have tended to move towards the extreames of both left and right, not just in the US. This seems more due to the recession, and the increase in inequality, which tends to lead people away from the status que and towards the 'politics isn't working' position.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that obama's race has nothing to do with the republican's lurch to the right - I'm sure there are US specific issues there to do with changing demographics, and a backlash from the historically dominant group seems plausible - but just as with comparing Clinton's supposed economic competence with Obama's - the wider global trends and global conditions are very important.
global trends dont affect the US as much as europe. also there is no dominant party in this country, republicans and democrats have both been strong for a long time. and by global trends you probably mean european trends.
Except when the trends are a reaction to what's going on in the US. The global economic crisis was in large part triggered by the 2008 economic crisis in the US, and the bubble that the FED created by eliminating interest rates until just recently. The anti-establishment thing is in large part a reaction to the draconian "security" measures that the Federal Government put in place following 2001, which has continued to grow at a rapid pace, as well as the subsequent invasions (which many European nations joined in) of various Middle Eastern nations, which caused, along with later economic issues, greater dissent against the establishment. * I know you might not see it this way, but in many ways they both act the same. Obama was a reactionary anti-establishment candidate "Yes we can!" close gitmo, stop torture, pull out of the Middle East, have greater transparency in government, strike down these unconstitutional signing statements and executive orders... Those were the things he ran on (and then he did the opposite but that's besides the point). Heck, I believe that part of the reason Obama got the nomination over Hillary was because he wasn't directly associated with Clinton or Gore at the time, he had appeared to many to be an "outsider." While there is obviously division on some issues (although I believe some of that to be manufactured) the establishment Dems and Repubs have largely pushed for the same things. More wars, greater centralized government powers, and so on. At least for the time I've been alive. The reason I'm mentioning this is because for many, they didn't see it this way either. To a lesser extent, this was bubbling up with Bush and Clinton (and Bush again), but it also wasn't as large of a concern and the economy at the time was doing better (mostly). So with more people coming to share my point of view (whether right or wrong) there are more people wanting to be certain of what they get, and to go for something that is at least "different" and especially if it seems forthright (thus Trump and Sanders). I also think the main reason you don't see more hype for third party candidates (yet) is due to WHY the Republicans and Democrats are still so strong: They have a stranglehold on both the Media and general Campaign Law. Such that there are people that believe it's impossible, given current campaign laws and such, to get a third-party candidate in. I don't think they are technically right of course, but certainly there are issues there. *(All that said, I'm pretty sure the "historically dominant group" badgerale was referring to was right white men, and that he was backing up your statement of racial motivation as being at least plausible.)
It may have initially burst in the US, but the causes of the financial bubble were perhaps even more evident in Europe due to a deregulated financial market, and the mortgage lending thing wasn't the only messed up part of the financial sector that everyone was keen to ignore. Which is why European banks fell just as US ones did.
No he's weak because he's got the same fake smile on his face whenever he does or does not talk. He also doesn't have more in him than his talking points about the IRS/constitution/christianity.
cruz is latino like obama is white. there are no "real" latino candidates in this race, rubio is latino but his idealogy isnt what most latinos believe in. His race is just used for political advantage,(to win over some latino voters in a state with alot of them) republicans look for people like him with non white backgrounds who share their ideals for watever reason to get votes of minorities. ben carson and hermain cain are 2 other examples, like less than 10% of the african american population shares their political beliefs.(if they even believe what they say) not saying democrats dont do the same thing because they do(they lack the support of white men, people who claim to be very religious, etc) but republicans do it more because their party is less diverse. Both parties suck but this is what we got.
cruz and trump both have insane ideologies and it would be a tragedy for either of them to be nominated but trump isnt as bad as cruz. I dont know why the republicans dont want a normal candidate like rubio or bush, probably has something to do with obama being elected.
