2016 Primaries, Caucuses & Conventions

What he believes in his heart doesnt matter, what matters is his actions... hes acted more towards the center than hed like in an attempt to reduce the backlash and to try and get things done. (unsuccessfully arguably since the right still hates him and opposes everything he does anyway)

a socialist doesnt get anything done and just causes the republicans to become a more extreme party, which is why obama hasnt been anything like that while in office. bernie sanders is a terrible candidate for president, nominating him would only divide america and cause the republican party to go even farther to the right. democrats arent dumb enough to nominate bernie for president. This is a 2 party system that requires you to work with the other side, far left or right candidates are bad.(the current house is a prime example of what happens when you elect extreme candidates, all they've done for the most part is harm america but they aren't to blame its the voters.)

 

bernie sanders would make a better local politician like a governor or senator than a president. the republicans would fight against everything he tried to do if he were elected president. ted cruz needs to retire from politics, he's crazy... trump should have ran for congress or governor before running for president.

 

First of all, Kenyan. They believe he's from Kenya. I'm sure this has to do with him claiming to have brothers in Kenya, who are not American, etc. That his father is Kenyan, and so on. "Dreams From My Father" supposedly detailed much of this (I have not read that book however).

People had difficulty (apparently) finding his Hawaiian Birth Certificate, so people asked for it, he refused to give it (for a very long time) and some people thought maybe it's because he was born in Kenya or whatever and therefore not a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US.

Ted Cruz has people attackign him on a perceived similar issue with his Canadian birth (and whether or not his mother was still a US citizen). They aren't doing this because Ted Cruz is Black (and no one seems to question Ben Carson). Unless I've missed something that should be blatantly obvious.

Second of all, of course if he was White, they'd probably think he was a Canadian Muslim (or something) rather than from Africa. In spite of the fact that black people live in Canada and white people live in Kenya, there is a general perception that one nation is largely a specific skin color and the other another.

Thirdly, there are four things that cause people to think he might be a "secret Muslim."

1. His name is Middle-Eastern-ish. This is of course a very stupid reason, but it is a reason. I think people would still question this even if he was White as the driven snow. Supposedly it's also a psuedonim/claimed name as his "real" name is "Barry Soetoro" or whatever. *I don't know about that.*

2. His own story and pictures from his youth showing him and his involved with Muslims. While this of course does nothing to counteract the fact that he openly worships with a Southern Baptist pastor and was baptized in 1988, this is part of the reason people think he might be.

3. His screwing up swearing on the Bible his Oath of Office (at least the first time, not sure about the second). For some reason they think this means he's a Moo-slim, and not that sometimes people screw up and don't want any second screw up televised.

4. Apparently some Secret Service guys have been feeding lines about him praying to Mecca to some of the more prominent "Conspiracy" outlets, though this has been discredited by other (retired) Secret Service guys.


While skin color might be part of it (in the US, most Muslims have historically been Black, though that may be changing with more immigration and such). It is by far not the primary reasons for these rumors and such.


Personally, I don't care about any of this. Even in the very unlikely event that such things are true, it's just one more thing he's lied about to the public, and remains one of the least important things compared to his enaction of policies:

He says that government will be more transparent and that he will act to protect whistle-blowers? Makes government even more opaque than with Bush and Clinton, and persecutes whistle-blowers constantly.

He says he'll go through diplomatic channels and put an end to useless wars? He gets us involved in two more (though, credit where it's due, the overtures to Iran do seem to be working out), and his policies through the State department are credited (by internal memos of the Pentagon and the State Department) in part with the creation and empowerment of ISIS.

He says no one wants your guns? He gets the "we really have to brainwash them into thinking about guns in an entirely different way" Secretary of State in, and makes constant pushes for expanded gun control, including pushing for replacing normal guns with "Smart" Guns only. I know not everyone is a fan of guns, and I very much understand that even if I disagree on points, but the issue here is about his lies and promises.

He talks about limiting signing statements and executive orders, and puts forward some of the most broad sweeping EOs around.

You get the idea.


To be perfectly honest, I think the reason he won the Second election was because he was against Romney, who was viewed as someone who would mostly continue the same policies regardless. People didn't believe in Romney any more than they believed in Obama.

Plus, a lot of the negative effects of policies Obama had pushed for hadn't quite kicked in yet, and not everyone in the US is as well informed as you or I.


Do I think Race has something to do with both his sucess and the backlash? Sure. I also think it had something to do with the backlash against Bush and Clinton as well to be honest (though not the same racists of course).

But do I think it played "the biggest role" in either of these? Hell no.

"Anyone on the left will tell you it's about racism, because admitting the truth that it's about policies makes them look bad. It's an open secret.

Clearly if you feel otherwise you're in denial or insane."

Do you see how intractable this viewpoint is? You are, essentially, saying that anyone that disagrees with you is racist and/or crazy.

That is a seriously ****ed up way to approach people or even (especially?) generalities.

 

what your saying is silly, the only reason they brought up all of that rediculous conspiracy stuff is because he's black. the birth certificate thing, muslim thing, socialist thing, and a bunch of other made up fantasy bs.

i didnt even think it was possible in this country for a non white person to be elected president so i guess dealing with all that bs isnt so bad, he still got elected. honestly i expected even more backlash and alot less support from white people than he got.

obama being elected probably wouldnt have been possible even just 20 years ago. Also he would not have been elected if his mother wasnt white or if he wasnt light skin.

 

If you have seen any of his posts on these forums you would realize this is pretty in kind with everything else he posts. He is one of the most publicly arrogantly ignorant people I have ever encountered.

 

*sigh*

Well, I hope you enjoy living life in your strange world where everyone supposedly cares more about skin color than character.

I'd already covered the first things.

The Socialist thing is undoubtedly a reaction to his health care ideas, and his connection with Bill Ayers, one of the communist Weatherman terrorists. Or his entry into Oxford as an avowed Marxist. Of course, none of this means he's still a Socialist today, people's minds can change after all.

Also "Dreams From My Real Father."* Which alleges that his actual father was Frank Marshal Davis. Which I guess wouldn't be possible if he was fully White (genetics and all that) but I suppose it could have been some other supposed communist.

*(I haven't looked through this either. However, it is worth noting that Obama's family still in Kenya was actually convinced by it, and asked for genetic verification of Obama's claims to be tied to that family. Though I don't know what to really think of that, but you can see the interview between Joel Gilbert and Malik Obama here if you want: it's an interesting interview anyway.)

 

take an american history class, you seem to be ignorant of it. race has always played a major part of this country's history. non whites have suffered greatly, throughout americas history.

nobody in america besides the now extinct native americans families came from america, obama himself was born in hawaii, your post is silly.

 

So, I'm juggling in my mind, a couple of different responses, so I'll put them all out and see which you prefer:

Response A:

I'm well aware of American History. I'm also aware of America's present. I grant that there is likely some racial bias as the basis for SOME of the issues in modern times. But the reality is that the ISSUES are more important. I've demonstrated WHY people would think these things. You however have only claimed that the people that disagree with you are in denial, lying to cover themselves, or otherwise simply ignorant. That, in and of itself, displays your own bias, albeit not necessarily a racially motivated one. You're free to have and voice your opinion, as far as I'm concerned. But at a certain point we will simply have to agree to disagree. I think you've been sucked into the "race baiting game", where I see general distrust of the "status quo" of the vector of policy (which Obama largely represents), and I saw it start long before Obama took the office on the promises that he would do a 180 on.

People felt betrayed. Not because he was Black, but because his actions did not reflect his campaign. In the media, these people were declared racists. No one wants to listen to "racists" because that would somehow make them "racist" by association. But even that has lost much of it's potency in the last 8 years, even in the few cases where it was actually an appropriate accusation.

You feel differently, that's fine, but I think it's ludicrous to assume that everyone who's against Obama is so because of racism, or even that it is the largest factor involved, or even a major factor.

American history is rife with bigotry, and even today it hasn't been entirely extinguished. But civilizations change and grow and adapt. Assuming that the same "fears" of the past are what drives the motivations of entirely different people in the present is foolish at best.


Response B:

Every "group" has suffered greatly, at one time or another. Stop clinging to the past and embrace the present. If racism was truly the main motivating factor for the opposition he wouldn't have gotten into the office in the first place.


Response C:

When I grew up, I was surrounded by many people of different color, complexion, and all sorts of things. While I've a bit of Winnebago in me, it's a relatively small amount. Mostly I've got French and German, some Italian, some Irish... basically a melting pot of European. My cousin has a LOT more Native American in her genetics. My classmates and friends were white, black, brown, yellow and mixed all kinds. I never thought anything of it, and neither did they. We were "people" and everyone knew that. There might have been some that we didn't get along with, but it was because of who they were, not how much melanin they had.

That wasn't always the case, that's what History teaches us anyway. But the generations that suffered have gained some small measure of their freedom. And the new generations are limited more by wealth than skin color, something most people of all skin colors have had to deal with, if not presently, than in their family's past.

In another generation or two the perceived differences could be all but eliminated. Provided the past isn't used as a platform to persecute the present unjustly.


Response D:

Take your ad-hominem and kindly Firk off.



Well, that's all of them. Take your pick.

 

your personal experiences do not respresent the experiences of the tens of millions of minorities and their families in this country. You assume that I was reffering to everyone that disagrees with obama in my earlier post, that's not what I was saying. I dont think you understand what im talking about and I dont have time to explain to you the problems minorities and the poor have, living in this country.

 

i didn't really want to get into this, but i do find a few things odd with your post.

in A, you have a section starting with "People felt betrayed" (which i take to mean you, personally, but that's not too important) and ending with "...a major factor".

it suggests, contrary to what i believe you have written prior in this thread, that the average american citizen has a litany of complaints with our present on specific policy based issues. i would be surprised if your average joe blow type followed the course of national level politics enough to have the same litany that you do.

also, and vaguely related, i've seen a number of charts floating around for a while now, all comparing obama to former presidents (reagan, clinton, and both bushes are i think the popular ones. less clinton though). the charts draw comparisons on days taken off, number of executive orders signed, and number of promises actually kept. likely more stuff, but those are the ones i remember. all of the charts reflect positively on obama (because that's why they were made, but hey).

if you want i can go dig some of them up, but i'm at this point assuming you've seen the same stuff. so *if* all of that is true, is it more a matter of scale then? that the promises kept were small things, or the executive orders signed meant more than with other presidents? or that a politician campaigned on the premise, the promise that he would do a thing, and then got into office and went "hey guys, about that thing? not so much" ?

the reason this tends to devolve into people calling (and denying) racism, i think, is that it's pretty much expected that every politician will pull this Bane Shift. sometimes reasonably, sometimes with no good reason given. the question becomes "why is this one special?", and skin color is both the first and the easiest thing to see.

one could make the argument that given what obama had to work with in the house it's a wonder that he's done as much of what he wanted as he has. i'm not going to here because i think that's both beside the point and something that i don't know enough about.

moving on- with B, there is literally nothing to support that statement. let's say that every (white) racist voter voted against him, and every non-racist voted for. a ludicrous assumption, but let's just say that's so for simplicity's sake. do you have any data on the numbers for either of these things? are you saying that you think more than 50% of the country is racist? am i just misunderstanding?

with C, i tend to agree on the broad strokes (as in i think that american-heritage racism is likely to fade over the next few generations, but what that means is up for debate). however, it seems a lot (throughout what parts of this thread i can remember) like you're presenting your worldview as based on yourself. understandable, but "insert line about how you're not the everyman or some bullshit". your circumstance isn't much of anyone else's, i suppose is the fastest way to say it.

as for D, i was amused.

 

No, but all the minorities that shared that experience with me, and that shared similar experiences in places I've never been... they are a heck of a lot more common than you seem to believe.

If that's not the case, make it clear eh? You have consistently claimed that the BIGGEST reason for the "right" to have backlashed against Obama is because of Race. You are, essentially, claiming that they are racists. Then you backpedal a bit. This isn't the first time. I made a thread for this very topic which you made some specious claims in and then abandoned without debate, as far as I can tell, completely ignoring my response to you, and the opportunity for further discussing this beyond merely stating what is largely mere rhetoric.

You don't have to immediately, but make the time. Otherwise how else do you intend to ever convince anyone?

You say I don't understand, you call me ignorant. You imply I can't understand because, what, I'm not a minority? Because I'm "not poor" in your view?

If you say you don't have the time, maybe you don't have the time. But also I can't help but wonder if you understand it well enough to explain it yourself. If there is more to it than just saying: "it's because racism."

 

It's true I doubt that most have as extensive knowledge as I do. However, I do think that people that voted him in based on issues are more likely to have at least followed on those specific issues, and he's betrayed almost all of them. So maybe less of a litany than I have, but still a sense of being betrayed.

Yes, for the most part.

Also the manner. For example, Obama is attempting to use Executive Orders to do more things that Executive Orders weren't really meant for (essentially, to legislate), and bypassing Congress (generally) more than previous. Guns, authorizing military to go into Syria (stretching the anti-Al-Qaeda AUMF to extend to Assad, an enemy of ISIS and Al-Qaeda). Clinton did similar things, but I also think people were less aware of them, and of course Bush is infamous for having allowed the deception to go into Iraq, but at least he also went through Congress for that.

I think it's also worth noting that the Internet is much more present in more people's lives. Many people have grown up with computers, and become more comfortable with them and in using them as a source of information above and beyond mainstream media.

While that's not always a good thing, I think it allows for people to get multiple perspectives on a given issue, and quicker, more raw information.

No, I was going off what had appeared to be the assumption that mw was going off of (which would imply the above).

I don't believe it, and used the election results as part of my argument against such assumptions.

Certainly. But this applies to every individual's experiences, including those that went through hardships due to racism. The anecdotes were meant to be supporting of the "broad strokes" but not the sole reason for me to paint them.

Thanks, I do what I can.

 

To be "fair", it's still early yet, and it's also unlikely the DNC would use it simply because of how hypocritical it would look (even IF it was correct to go after him on that, which I presently highly doubt). The attacks were only really started in the last couple weeks I think as well, in Trump's words: "Because you're doing better!" (as for why it wasn't brought up sooner)

Still seems like BS to me, but whatever.

I also think that the reason they attacked Obama on that issue was that his promises and rhetoric at the time were mostly great, so they couldn't really attack him on issues so much, but rather to make him look "untrustworthy" or "incapable of legally holding office."

Persistence might be a mixture of being unwilling to eat crow. Or having his untrustworthy-ness confirmed on other issues being a "confirmation" of sorts on the "issue" of his Birth in the minds of others. I'm sure some of it is race based as well, but again it is clearly not limited to that.

I don't think me and MW (and you) disagree on that. But rather how MUCH of a factor each is. I think the former is not a major factor, let alone the biggest factor. MW disagrees and thinks it's the biggest, and you seem (not sure) to be somewhere in the middle.

 

You know, I'm not entirely sure. However, making law or waging war without Congress is inherently unconstitutional.

As I understand it, Executive Orders were primarily (originally) used to ensure things like there being enough office supplies. Making sure there's enough ink and quill to go around, replacing broken chairs, and the like. Obviously it's usage changed quite a bit, but I'm not completely sure how much of it is actually unconstitutional and how much is because of changes to authorizations and whatnot.

 

Part of that (for Cruz) might be they don't feel the need to bother anymore. I think there have already been some murmurings to get an Amendment (or something) to do away with that clause in the first place. But also I think part of it is just that they don't care anymore. "We've done this before, it hardly mattered then. Let's get on with our lives already."

On a related note, I was amused that Cruz had fired back at Trump, citing ostensibly similar things (with the difference that Trump was born on a base and all that, sort of like McCain?). Trump seemed to just shrug and move on, so I'm not sure he really cares THAT much either, seemed to just be using it as a talking-point/rhetorical attack.

 

i've heard things about cruz's place of birth being improper for a legal POTUS going back some time now; i feel like it hasn't come up more because no one expected him to do particularly well.

on paper, back at the start of this thing it was Jeb! and trump most eyes were on, iirc. then trump went on to dominate media attention for however goddamn long, and then just recently it looks like there's potential in cruz.


also, one could argue that cruz doesn't get the same sort of racism directed his way because of how light his skin is. this obviously doesn't account for carson, which i assume gets explained away as "people don't like to think they're racist, and they're already indoctrinated against The Left, so voting for a black man could help them feel more validated / not racist"

sort of the "but i have a black friend" defense, but on a larger scale and even less provable.

i dunno