How much of the opposition to Obama is about his race?
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his election sparked a little bit of something that was an undercurrent in America's attitude, something generally hidden and sometimes not.
I know of at least one person personally. His words to me were, "He's black. We are white. He must go back to his own country. We are not the same. I will not have a black man rule over the white men of this country."
Needless to say, this man is no longer in my circle of friends.
For the most part, I think it's a factor that will be denied.Yes, you can sense it in some of the opposition, and I've had friends tell me they know people who are much more hateful about it and use some pretty blatant expletives. Some people are blatant and don't mince words and I think some others are unconscious of some underlying prejudices they hold; this is usually the case.
Most of the animus against Obama is based upon his race. Barack Obama is the first Black president and there are many people who are threatened by this. It is the 21st century and so many people are hung up on race. It is not the person's race but his/her character, intelligence, and drive! President Obama is attempting to clear the socioeconomic mess that ex-President Bush created. Many Americans are afraid of anyone who is different and President Obama represents that difference!
Your premise is flawed. How did Obama get all those white votes the first time? Are the people who voted for him in 2008 and vote otherwise in 2012 somehow converted racists?
Despite a few idiots, most people are more concerned with his policies than his race. Many of the same people who are being accused would also vote for Condelezza Rice, Herman Cain and Allen West. How can that be explained?
It's not "telling" in any significant way. It didn't stop him getting elected, and it's not doing anything now. Nobody but a tiny minority of old-world bigots gives a crap about his race. He's going to get reelected or not based on how people decide he did over the last four years (and probably most of them are going to be making their decisions based on whatever the TV commercials tell them).
My disike for President Obama (and previously candidate Obama) is strickly based on ideas, ideals, policies and associations. The fact that he has darker skin in not a factor in any way, shape or form. Nor is it a factor for any of my conservative friends. The "race card" is most often brought up by the left when discussing the facts are not to their advantage. I have had people call me racists because I have brought up the economy, welfare, Obamacare and even golf (haha).
As to your topic question, I have to have my head in the sand not to believe that it has a great deal to do with the incredible amount of resistance to him personally and politically that I see through out the country. I say, YES, that race is certainly a great part of it.
Yes, and it surprises me that some people are saying none of the opposition has to do with his race. Agree with him or not, it is obvious that there is a racist element that is opposed to Obama because of his race. Here is the mentality of some of them: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … mp;theater But I would have to see that to know that racism is a factor; it is part of the undercurrent of America, and it came out loud and clear in some places after Obama got elected.
What of those that voted for him simply because he is black? Is that not racism? If you are voting for someone because of their skin color, then you are, by default, voting against someone else for the same reason.
Mitch, that is bilgewater. They supported Obama primarily because he is a democrat as b lack folks tend to do. Kerry got 88% of the Black vote, wasn't he white? It is atired old refrain that you guys always sing in direct contradiction to the truth.
<link snipped>I said what of those who did vote for that reason. I didn't say that all who voted for him did so for that reason. Some people vote for him and some against him simply on ethnicity, but it was a small faction on either side. Most people either voted for or against his ideas and ideals or because of party affiliation. Party and ethnicity are both ridiculous reasons to vote for someone. Only Ideas, ideals and policies should be taken in to account.
So, Mitch, what do you think happened in 1960, Kennedy as the first Roman Catholic president must have had many that voted for him for just that reason. Trust me, we would never vote for a Black republican in any serious way. When Alan Keyes ran against Obama for the . senate race in 2006, Keyes go little if any black vote and lost to Obama handily.The "some" is in reality miniscule. Black people are going to vote for those party affiliations that address our concerns and issues regardless of what color of skin is holding the proper banner.
As for you last sentence, that may be true in a perfect world but we know that there are plenty of people of all races, ethnicity and political persuasion, that do not make these decision for completely rational reasons. So you really should not single out Blacks in this regard.I didn't single it out...that was the specific question that was asked.
And, yes some voted for Kennedy and against him simply for his religion. Some will always vote that way...and that is their right. Don't you agree?
Yes, voting for someone just because of their race is also racist; that's what prejudice is, it can go either direction. And that is another part of the equation; some will defend him purely on that basis, and agree with him purely on that basis (race). I think it is also true that he projected a heavy image that appealed to people based on that kind of thing, and it is unfortunate people are so easily manipulated by image.
Believe me, I did not have to look to far to get more than adequate evidence of your point
Considering Obama would be a moderate Republican in a time gone by (cap and trade, and the insurance mandate both were originally ideas floated around the conservative party to go against the Democrats idea of universal health care and a complete cap on carbon emissions).
The Republican party has just moved farther right in economics and abortion. On gay marriage they are actually changing, albeit slowly.
However, between 87 and 90% of self-identified Republicans are white, according to Gallup, which is generally reliable.
Some of the opposition to Obama is clearly based on race, such as questioning his birth certificate, and the small percentage of the population that votes Republican that is racist (KKK, minute men, Nazis).
You mustn't forget though, how much of a tizzy the right works itself into when a DEMOCRATIC president is elected. Rush and the Republicans claimed Clinton raising taxes would ensure the economy would severely slow down, and we all know how that turned out.
I basically separate the GOP into three different parts. There are the racists; there are the flat out crazy (denying climate change, evolution, homophobic, imperialism (McCain)); there are what I like to real the REAL utopians, which are the more principled, and I think are closer to the majority of the Republican party (on economic issues, a sizable number of Republicans do unfortunately poll like theocrats).
These are the people who are market fundamentalists, and believe that the market will regulate itself, no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary. They are socially liberal, in favor of a woman's right to choose, equality for homosexuals, and a separation of Church and State.
Opposition from these different groups will break down pretty easily. It's just upsetting that while the majority of Republicans are not racist, they are not quick to call out the racist elements in their party, due to the fact that there is still an electoral advantage to keep them in.I would like to see your proof of evolution. Oh, and the evidence that continually indicates how the market fails to regulate itself.
You're being serious? Please provide me with evidence that 1 + 1 is 2.
Yes, I am. Do you have proof that evolution is true? I would find that interesting, since even Darwin himself could not prove it, nor any other scientist that believes evolution is how life started. That is why it is called theory.
BTW, math is not science, and is often provable. So, your mathematical example is pure nonsense. See here for more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jSyYMeb_cAnother victim of the Tea Party Syndrome!
Well, there is a cogent comment. I am in no way affiliated with the Tea Party. I have never attended a gathering, spoke with a Tea Party member of donated any money to these groups. I am simply questioning this undying devotion to evolution, as if it is a fact that no one can question.
Do you have proof of evolution? Do you not agree that Darwin said nothing on how the single-cell organism came to be, even though he built his works on this cell? See, you simply deny such questions as they are unanswerable, and fly in the face of what specific groups desire evolution to be called truth, when scientifically, it is anything but hardened truth.WTF, this post is not addressing evolution, it is addressing if the opposition to President Obama is based upon racism. Please stick to the subject. If this was a test, you would have gotten an F!
I didn't say or suggest that you are a member of the Tea Party, but rather that you are a victim of the Tea Party Syndrome one of whose prime characteristics is denial of evolution and belief in creationism or "intelligent" design. You ask for proof of evolution. Where's your proof of creationism? I'm willing to bet you exhibit other symptoms of the syndrome as well, such as denial of global warming, homophobia and so forth. For a diagnosis, take the time to answer the following 20 questions.
http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-itIs this supposed to be some sort of litmus test as to one's intelligence?
Are you familiar with the term hubris?Yes. Are you familiar with the term "humor?" Why don't you take the test and report your results?
Oh yes. i took the test and passed although there is much debate couched in lots of that there and the mouth breathing thing goes past humor into insult. I realize of course that stupid Conservatives are fair game. Remember I give as good as I get.
I have to admit it was difficult as i am so stupid I actually had to get someone to read it to me.
As i said ....hubris.
Where did I say that I support or believe in creationism? I am merely saying that the statement "denying evolution" is incorrect, as it is just a theory. No one here can provide proof of evolution, or intelligent design. However, to act in a manner to suggest evolution is scientific fact is wrong. ID is also a legitimate theory, which even Richard Dawkins says is a possibility. (he believes that aliens seeded the Earth, which then led to some type of creationist/evolutionist continuum)
See, all you have is the ability to throw labels at people who do not believe you. Your test is just that; a way to label people based on a flawed premise. Besides, you should know that global warming is no longer the preferred term; it is called climate change.
Oh, and did you know that CO2 levels are at a 20 year low? See here for an interesting report:
In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically, to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power-plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Read more: Use of natural gas credited for drop in CO2 emissions - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z25KAN3ANP
I look at many sides of an argument. When alternate opinions or facts surface, I think it necessary to review "closed" arguments. Besides, was the "Tea Party Syndrome" available to you 20 or 30 years ago, before it became a popular term in political circles and the media? How did you label your test back in the day?" Besides, you should know that global warming is no longer the preferred term; it is called climate change."
Says who? I prefer "global warming" because it better describes what is happening according to the best available science.C'mon, you know the political winds have shifted and scientists and politicians are looking at all climate changes to indicate man is destroying the earth. Of course, your "best science available" must not include this study:
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … z25KuzBtIy
Or the article I cited earlier, I presume. But, keep on creating your hubs to label people, because that is more important than researching facts and keeping honest, forthright debate moving along.The climate in "Roman and Medieval times" is irrelevant today.
Then global warming today will be irrelevant in 1,000 to 2,000 years. Why should we care, eh?
A couple of thousand years of likely misery for ourselves and our descendents is worth worrying about in my opinion. Some people like yourself have trouble looking beyond the end their nose. As I type I'm looking out my back window looking at a 50-ft oak tree planted by my children from an acorn 35 or so years ago.
" I am merely saying that the statement "denying evolution" is incorrect, as it is just a theory. "
Apparently, you don't know what a scientific theory is. I'll educate you.
http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html
http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb31 … ories.html
I'd try to avoid making the mistake again. If you say evolution is "just a theory," you are just showing you don't know how to use the term.I use the term "theory" in its accurate historical context, as in Darwin's theory of evolution. You may recall there is also the theory of relativity or theory of physics, among other historical examples. I do not attempt to remove the word "theory" from this historical use in order to strengthen the evolution argument, as other seek to do.
There are two key points in your sources, however. The first says:
"In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field."
and the second says:
"some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory."
So, since no theory is ever proven, most evolutionists are incorrect when they say the argument is settled scientifically. That is why I ask for proof; one can deny evolution so long as it is not settled completely, which evolution clearly is not. (even Darwin admits this) Some evidence obviously supports certain hypotheses, while other hypotheses do not receive support. But, the general populace is told that evolution is hard science, which is untrue.
Anyway, you can keep your educating to yourself, Okie. I do fine on my own."A couple of thousand years of likely misery for ourselves and our descendents is worth worrying about in my opinion. Some people like yourself have trouble looking beyond the end their nose. As I type I'm looking out my back window looking at a 50-ft oak tree planted by my children from an acorn 35 or so years ago." (I reply here because I cannot do so above)
First, I was being facetious, due to your faulty logic that the past has nothing to do with the present. See, the article I posted on the tree ring study suggests a global cooling period since the Medieval Age. I think that is an important fact on this discussion, since global warming alarmists typically take a much smaller sample, say, the early to mid-1900s. (or just a few decades back) Once you open up the sample size, one finds a completely different story. That is interesting, in my opinion.
And again, if CO2 levels are at a 20-year low in America, then the U.S. is not necessarily contributing more carbon to the atmosphere since 1992. Also an interesting point. I do not necessarily worry about the alarmist argument seen on TV or discussed by Al Gore because there is more to the story than what they tell. Fear is a powerful tool, especially for global warming/climate change alarmists.
But, you can keep looking at your tree and ignore the facts presented, as you cannot fit them neatly into your "Tea Party Syndrome" hub. Oh well.
Listen, I think there have been times when I think that Obama has been the best Republican for the job...
Does Obama belong to another special race? For God's sake, please elaborate!
Nope. As far as I'm concerned there's only one race--the human race.
Read the opening statements of this thread
Sir, race has become an issue with some opposition. You can interpret my statement to criticize, but the issue I brought up is clear; people have categorized people according to race, America has a long history of this practice, and so does about all of the world; we have outward characteristics that are different; in fact, that's my point: That some are focusing on that, which, of course, is irrelevant (to focus on race). It is clear that it is happening, that Obama's race (characteristics or superficial categorization, if you want) is a factor in the opposition to him; not all opposition, of course, but as usual it is a factor; *as usual* in the sense that it is common for people to look to superficial differences to direct their judgments and perceptions. I don't understand the need for elaboration if one is looking in front, to the side, and behind the question. But there was the elaboration you requested.
Look, I said to read the opening statement to made him aware of the race issue, it was not to criticize you. I can't deny that human races do not exist, they do. For God's sake, a German girl is very different from an Ethiopian girl. But the question is, does that matter?
I know certain groups who would be reluctant to marry to persons from certain other groups. And this reluctance is not in vain.I wasn't sure who or what you were addressing, and I'm not criticizing, it was unclear, though. You are making my point, roundabout. My question is whether it is an issue with some of the opposition. Obviously it does not really matter, fundamentally and ultimately; but it is relevant that people still think in terms of labels, etc. I'm looking at the political scene and the undercurrent of American culture (or all cultures). After all, the political scene is just a reflection of the minds and relationship of people, as in society generally. I'm not angry at your statement, but I wasn't clear what you were addressing The point that race doesn't matter is obvious; which is exactly my point; if people are making it an issue, then it indicates a rather deep-seated problem. The truth is, ultimately, race is illusory, as is any identification. I don't bring up that kind of issue on this site, it tends to go ignored. The differences between people are completely superficial; again, it is telling that it is an issue in America, what Obama is in terms of race. As far as your question, Doe race matter? It doesn't matter at all. But it becoming an issue for people opposed to Obama is relevant, because it means many people are terribly confused. That he has gotten us into more wars, that he hasn't fundamentally changed conditions for people, that he says one thing and does another, that his cabinet has members of Wall St and big business corporations; those things are relevant, however. In conclusion, actually I understand your point: Race does not matter, at all, and Obama is human like everyone else. His race says nothing to me, his actions do.
It's become clear to me that I misunderstood your original statement. Yes, it doesn't matter what race he is and he is a human being. Good point.
The odd is that SOME people will think otherwise, and you can't prove they are wrong.
KUDDOS TO THAT. It all sounds great but that is not really what the reality is we all are seeing and certainly hearing daily on line are we? Racism is alive and well and living in America so cut the Kum Ba Ya nonsense! Try living the real life of any minority in America which really has always belonged to the NON white man the Indian and see what racism really is.
Race is a large part of it.This election has pointed out to me and to a lot of other people racism in America is still alive and kicking. But I still think those people are in the minority and we really have come a long long way.
Yes, that's how I feel about it, basically. I think there is a continuing undercurrent of racism in the country that was sparked by the election of Obama. This is one of the main points I was driving at. I think the prejudice can be blatant or subtle, but I think it is abiding in American culture; it's curious to me that people haven't explored it a little bit. Not that it's the only issue, and not that a person can't criticize Obama for policies and discrepancies; but the race issue has come out loud and clear and in subtle ways, often.
President Obama is HALF black and HALF white. I think the fact he was elected in the first place makes it obvious that racial fears have receeded in the last century.
I haven't nor will I ever vote for the man. I disagree with his socialist politics.
I cannot respect the way he has abused this country and our tax dollars. He mocks authority, laughs about not going to any of the budget meetings. He has comited a war crime in invading Pakistan without their permission, and is doing a complete about face on gay marriage and military to get elected again.
On the question of his birth certificate.. unfortunately, his hiding of his birth and his past, the sealing of ALL his records throws up a red flag for most thinking people. It also shows lack of respect for his position and the American people who hired him.
People who think we, white people, are racist because we do not agree with his politics are using race issues to mask the fact he is just not a good president, has done ABSOLUTELY nothing but put this country in peril.
A lot of white people had to vote for president Obama for him to make it to the white house.
I wasn't one of them but I was impressed with his PROMISES and wished him the best .
My boyfriend is black, I'm white, we live in idaho, the dreaded white supremacy state, and YES!, about once every couple of years we run into some drug addict or a disgruntled black woman who doesn't agree with our love for one another. Not to worry! We don't care about ignorant people and their hate and fears.
My boyfriend and I are conservatives who disagree with the current administration because we are allowed to under the Constitution of the United States of America. We also 100% disagreed with the Clinton administration and they are white! Get a grip kids, conservatives will always disagree with liberals no matter what skin pigment they have!
I guess a GREAT question would be DO WE THE PEOPLE
have to like and support his politics because he is half black!? NO! That's my boyfriends question by the way. Isn't he wonderful!? Thank you Dewayne!I don't think everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. That would be absurd. Some of the opposition is racist and I think it has certain implications. That's all I'm driving at. I disagree with many if not most of Obama's policies, for different reasons than you, but nonetheless he's not my first choice as President, to be honest. He actually seems about the same as those who came before him, not a lot of difference to me. I'm definitely not talking about people who disagree with him, but I think race is playing into it. I don't think the birth certificate issue would have come up if it weren't for his race (no matter who brought it up); I think that's one of the undercurrents in this country (and the world)when someone looks at a person in this country: "Is he a foreigner?" I think the tendency of labeling people as "other" is strong.
Hopefully there are a very few like that. You will find that subject to be of great relish to many progressives here who will assert that any disagreement with the policies of the President is strictly racial because that would be the only possible reason. An unfortunate stance.
I don't know of anyone here who has said it is all to do with race.
I think it might be mostly a regional thing. I hate to admit it, but here in the Deep South, some folks hate having a black POTUS. They wouldn't like him, anyway, because most of them are hardcore conservatives, but I never saw as much hate for white Democrats as I've seen for Obama. PLEASE don't misunderstand my opinion here - I think it's totally possible not to like Obama's leadership and policies without racism playing a part.
I'll never forget all the email and text "jokes" I received the night Obama won. Most were along the lines of "Quick! Get your dogs and your guns! Coons have invaded the White House!" They made me sick. Sadly, some of the senders were educated people I had NEVER heard any racist remarks from before. Even one staunch Democrat pal told me he simply could not vote for a black man, so he wrote in Hillary. And this guy has been very active in the Dem party over the years.
I think it's totally possible to like and even admire someone whose policies you don't agree with. I was a McCain supporter, but it made me proud to see a minority elected as POTUS because I thought it really turned the page on racism in America. Apparently, I was wrong.Sadly, I agree with you. They exist. However, I don't think Obama would have got in if they had been in the majority.
There is also racist opposition to Obama in the north as well where I live in a suburb of Detroit. How common this factor is I don't know. But it's definitely there. Did anybody see Sasha Baron Cohen's "Borat"? In that movie Borat got an entire audience in a Tucson country and western bar singing "Throw the Jew Down the Well." I suspect that these same "cowboys" have opposed Obama because he's African American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
<link snipped>
I think I may have spotted Mitch in the bar, singing along with Borat. :-)
Habee, thanks for one of the few honest answers to this thread that I have seen. It is obvious that there is a lot of the "South" all over the USA.
Habee, you nailed it.
Sure, it's possible to disagree with Obama's policies and not give a darn about what color he is. Heck, I disagree with some of his policies myself.
But, at the same time, the level of nastiness and vitriol directed at Obama is unprecedented. Never has a white President been accused of being a secret Muslim bent on destroying America. Never has a white president been asked so vociferously and unreasonably to show his birth certificate to anybody but the election commission. But this president? There are still a lot of people who believe he wasn't born in the USA.
And you know what? Even some people whose disagreements are based only on policy are taking advantage of other people's racial hatreds/fears. They don't say "Don't vote for the black guy," 'cos that's too obvious, and (most) people would consciously reject that.
But they do say that they want to "Take our country back" (from whom, I wonder?) and talk a lot about the (imaginary) past when things were "better" (which is code for "there were no powerful black people") and make up lies about how Obama waived the work requirements for welfare (the waiver was in fact asked for by several Republican governors, and Obama merely agreed to make the requirement more flexible for them) and at the same time, the GOP heavily implies that Obama is all about taking from hardworking (code for "white") Americans and giving to undeserving (code for "minority") Americans (when in fact there are more white Americans on welfare than any other ethnic group).
Not all criticism of Obama is racial, but there's a definite racial undertone to most of it.Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The opposition is a little too vehement, with lots of racial undertones. And, yes, not all of it, but the undertone is there with most of it. Precisely.
Undertones?
Are they saying racist things or not or do we just think they are saying racist things because we don't like them?JS, it must be known to everyone that there's more to what someone says than what is on the surface; there is always something more behind it, there are implications and undertones. It's a sneaky way to imply and it is done in politics particularly and prevalently. I'm not saying it is the only thing involved in criticisms of Obama or that it is always involved in criticisms of him. But clearly it is part of many of the criticisms. The Muslim thing, the nation of origin thing, and the let's take our country back and fake nostalgia thing (as Jeff pointed out); these have racial implications. Historically, this is the language of nativists and racists; very common rhetoric in history to use that kind of language to garner support and create a mob of hate. I think it is very clear to someone who has coped with subtle forms of racism; there is often an implication of "you don't belong here" or a feeling of being "other". It's an undercurrent of America which is hard to pinpoint because it is most often hidden until something brings it out into the open. Obama's election brought it more out into the open.
From what I have sen it goes like this:
During the campaign process of 2008, a commentator on I believe it was wither MSNBC or CNN made the remark that they only way anyone could disagree with Barack Obama was out of racism.
From that moment forward that particular weapon has been used extensively whenever any disagreement with policy or inner workings of the administration is brought into question. It's the biggest stick they can find.. It is also the reason no major Democrat would primary him.It cannot be that every charge against Obama is racist just like it can't be that none of the opposition to him is racist; there is an element to the opposition that is racist, just like, I know, there is an element that fallaciously and absurdly thinks all opposition to him is racist. I once said that Obama is moving us to more wars, and someone implied that it was racist to say that. Very absurd. But that's what I mean. The race issue is misused in one place and overlooked in another; same thing.
+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. However, there are people who refuse to admit that there is an underlying and sometimes more overt racial aminus against the current POTUS! We'll see what happens in November, Nate! Have a Blessed Night and a wonderful Labor Day!
This is directed to:
Jeff Berndtposted post from 2 days ago
Excellent Well thought out comment on your post I agree 100%
Antoinette
It is all racially-motivated, in my opinion. This nonsense about his birth certificate is just a smokescreen for the racial issue. It is pure BS. Even if he was born outside the country, as a child of US citizens, he is automatically a US citizen himself, by virtue of his parentage. It's a non-issue. But the haters are looking for any excuse.
Mind you, I vote for candidates based upon their platforms, not on their race; that said, to some extent, all politicians fall into the same class: if their mouth is moving, chances are excellent that they are lying to you.
There are, indeed, several of President Obama's policies with which I disagree. That said, he did institute the regulations to force banks to work with homeowners so as to be able to keep their homes. Thanks to him, we will not become homeless, as we were able to get our loan modified under this program. Whether or not he is the best candidate for the job in the upcoming election is irrelevant....he's certainly head and shoulders above the alternative.MSLizzy....did you know Hilary Clinton started the birth certificate thing? During her campaign against him four years ago?
I am going to step in here quickly and point out your ignorance. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen, which is why Bill & Hillary brought this issue up. Obama's father was a foreign exchange student in the U.S., but never a legal citizen. Obama's mother, of course, was a citizen of the U.S., being born in Kansas, I believe.
Yes, but after Obama proved his citizenship, Hillary said, "Oh. Okay, then."
Which is the same thing everybody in America said after John McCain demonstrated that even though he was born outside of the USA, since he was born to a US serviceman and his wife, on a US base in a US territory, he still counts as a natural-born US citizen.
But McCain is a white guy, so it's easy to believe he's a proper US citizen. Obama, on the other hand, is a black guy whose dad was originally from Kenya, has a foreign-sounding name, and lived abroad without being connected to the military, so it's a lot easier to say, "He's not a proper American" and have (certain) people believe you.
And they did. Over and over and over again. If the leaders of the birthers aren't racists themselves, they're taking advantage of other people's latent racism.Bill & Hillary dropped the topic because due to political expediency. They moved on to other attacks to see what else would stick. Ten bucks says Bill & Hillary would bring the "birther" subject back up if they needed to; that's how they work.
So, you are saying that if someone questions an individuals birthplace, it is racist? That seems like an awfully slippery slope. Would you apply this same rational to seeing a presidential candidate's tax returns or college transcripts; it seems that demanding truth on these items may also be considered racist."So, you are saying that if someone questions an individuals birthplace, it is racist?"
No; what I'm saying is that continually raising the issue of Obama's birthplace even after he'd proven that he's a natural-born citizen (twice) only works because of underlying racism.
Plenty of people raised the issue with John McCain, saying that he might not be eligible because he was in fact born in Panama. McCain's supporters explained that although yes, he was born in Panama, he was born to a US serviceman and his spouse stationed overseas, and on a US base, in a US Territory (which the Panama Canal Zone was at the time), which makes him a natural-born citizen of the USA.
And everyone who questioned McCain's eligibility said, "Oh. Okay, then." And they shut up about it.
In Obama's case, it was explained over and over again that he was born in the State of Hawaii, which makes him a natural born US Citizen (no matter WHO his parents were), but no, that isn't good enough--they kept insisting on seeing the birth certificate for themselves. Then once it was produced, that wasn't good enough, it had to be a long-form one. Then they tried to say that "certificate of live birth" isn't the same as a "birth certificate," claim that the document had been altered, and all manner of other BS.
The box-of-rocks stupid people who believed this birther nonsense only believed because Obama is a black guy, and I think everybody on this forum knows it, whether they admit it or not.Romney and other Republicans have missed a number of opportunities to put this issue to rest.
The McCain "birther" argument is truly a non-issue, as a law was passed to ensure military related births outside of America still provided for proper citizenship. I believe this was an initial political ploy to distract from the Obama birth certificate. Its politics, right? Let's all distract one another, throw mud, and blame someone else. Once it was proven that McCain's birthplace was truly a non-issue, then that died politically.
And I do not think that all or most "birthers" have trouble with Obama being black; it is the "truthiness" of claiming American citizenship but then closing off much of his past. It just smells too political, just like some people believing other wild-eyed stories about various politicians.The McCain "birther" argument is truly a non-issue,
Exactly my point: it, just like Obama's birth certificate, is a non-issue.
I believe this was an initial political ploy to distract from the Obama birth certificate. Its politics, right? Let's all distract one another, throw mud, and blame someone else. Once it was proven that McCain's birthplace was truly a non-issue, then that died politically.
Of course it did. And it should have died when Obama was shown to have been born in Hawaii. But no, it kept on keeping on, because Obama's opponents kept perpetuating it, and a lot of morons believed them.
And I do not think that all or most "birthers" have trouble with Obama being black;
No, it's more insidious than straight up racism. A birther can comfortably say that they don't have a problem with black people, but it's also true that they find it easier to believe he's not a natural-born citizen because he's black. His "foreign-sounding" name is also a factor. Birthers can comfortably be suspicious of this black guy and tell themselves they don't have a problem with black people in general, but they'd never be suspicious of Obama in the first place if he were a white guy called, say, Gary Thompson.
It is unfortunate to see the depths people will go including racism. Shows a lack of 'mental growth' and maturity. What I find annoying is the 'negative' energy used to 'incite' that 'bring him down' mentality by attacking the POTUS, based on past performance and they themselves, have or offer nothing to compare, how or what changes they want to bring. It's low handed and trashy decorum I'd not want in any leader
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
0I would say there were just as many people who voted for him 'because he's black' as didn't vote for him 'because he's black'.
I despise his policies, his reckless spending, his lack of understanding about how free markets operate, his hypocrisy, and his narcissistic attitude.You despise Obama but you're not racist. Fair enough.
Why does that have to be racist? There's a woman I despise, and she's white. I'm white. I don't dislike her because she's white. I dislike her because of her actions.
Oh, I'm sorry. I expected you to read my mind or something....I just have been treated so awful by so many white men that it makes me leery of them. I mean, over and over. So often I feel more comfortable if there are black men in the room. So, I sometimes think that white people look at Obama like I look at whites..
So, on occasion, I confuse people like you who criticise Obama with people like me..And that's gets me to start thinking that people who despise Obama's policies don't even have a clue, just think he's black--like my not liking Romney simply because he is white, self-centered, upper class who has plans to give vouchers to people on Medicare, so that people like me will die when we get to be 67, the new age he and Ryan want it to kick in, etc.
But believe me, I'm sorry if you thought I thought you were racist. You simply see the polical landscape from a different perspective--like a heck of a lot of other people!
He said he despised his policies.....not the man himself.
Your observation regarding how many people voted for Obama because he is bBlack has no basis in reality. Obama was elected because the GOP sucked, responsible for the economic climate that preceded the tsunami of September 2008, It would have been easy for you to have run as the Dem and be elected under such horrendous conditions.
To each his own but believe me, I wouldn't have Romney as my dog catcher.There are definitely a few people who voted for Obama because he's black. Watch the interviews on Youtube. The interviewees knew nothing about Obama except for his skin color. When asked if they supported Obama's pick of Palin as VP, they said they did. They also supported issues that they thought Obama was for, even though he was actually against them.
But...ya know what? If I were black, I would prolly have voted for Obama, too. After seeing all white males elected as POTUS since the birth of this nation...I feel the same way about wanting to see a woman POTUS. I mean, seriously -- Britain, Germany, India, Israel. Pakistan, even, have had women leaders.
But ... I wouldn't vote for "anyone" just because she's a woman.
Some notable "absolutely NOTs" from the Tea Party come to mind here.
Wait...narcissistic attitude? Can you give me some examples of that, please?
"I would say there were just as many people who voted for him 'because he's black' as didn't vote for him 'because he's black'."
If you're referring to African-Americans, this doesn't add up because the vast majority of African-Americans vote Democrat whatever the color or religion of the candidate. No doubt Obama's percentage of African-American votes was a bit higher. Some whites may also have been influenced to vote for Obama because of his race, but, again this percentage was insignificant compared to the number who voted for McCain out of racial prejudice against Obama--birthers, tea baggers, rednecks, and various hate group members.I'm not talking just about blacks, for one.
But the increase in voter turnout among them, those extra people who voted who don't normally vote... do you really think they were voting for Obama because of his stellar record of voting 'present' in Chicago?
There were millions of more blacks, hispanics, and youths that turned out to vote for Obama, above the normal increase in voters that would be expected due to population growth. They were voting for Obama because he is black. Some of them were excited to have 'one of their own', some of them were excited 'to be part of history'... but they all voted because of his skin color.It's true that there was a surge in voter turnout by African-Americans in 2008. For the first time the percentage turnout by young African-Americans (age 18-24) exceeded that of whites for the first time. There's no doubt that they were influenced by Obama's race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/po … 1vote.html
You know I HAVE to say that it astounds me that people really BELIEVE that ONE MAN can and does "control" a whole country! It is the 6 families that control America and all it's corporations. They use the whole world as a chess game and sadly make Hitler look like a pre schooler with his ideals.
America has and continues to overthrow countries and whole governments with its military "might". Having military personnel in 150 countries out of how many 196. Has anyone every looked into just how many military bases America has all over the world? Answer: 900 And WHY??? Really now! Why is it only America can have a nuclear capabilities and yet deny certain others that and yet allow other countries to have it? Who made America the police of the world? As so many of my friends from other countries have asked me? This is just food for thought! But for people to be so naive to really believe that one man truly can control a whole country and so BLAME him for everything including the sun coming up in the morning is beyond me! And people who say "this is OUR country and "the founding fathers" PLEASE. They did not find anything, they over threw the Indians who were here first - broke every treaty and rewrote history to their reality!
Can people REALLY tell the TRUTH? Lets get real here people! Politics or Politrics? Obama like so many before him not only know where his bread is buttered on, but also probably his whole family has been threatened if he does not play ball. Colin Powell was "castrated" so he could not do his job effectively. Bob Marley was killed, if you believe he got cancer of the big toe you are gullible, Martin Luther King was assassinated, as well as Marcus Garvey who bought and built ships so black people could affect their own lives positively. America dropped a bomb on an 8 block radius on the Black Panthers because they had political power. Ertha Kitt's passport was revoked, as many other political dissidents. Do people ever wonder WHY all the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN is all EXACTLY the same? America has it's own well oiled propaganda machine! Has anyone watched the video of the World Trade Center IMPLOSION? America imploded it's own buildings to have a bogey man and make money on war. I wish people would take their heads out of the sand and start really THINKING critically and discussing among other people LIFE here and the world! Sheep have become the drones of the world. How many people have even lived out side of America to have a broader view point of life? Sadly not enough. How many are bilingual or have the narrow minded view and only believe everyone in the world "should" speak English? Lets get real people, instead of just scratching the surface here.
If the opposition to Obama is racially motivated, what do you make of those people who voted for Obama in 2008 but who now are choosing not to support him again? If they weren't racists when they pulled the lever for him in 2008, when did they suddenly become racists? 2009, 2010, 2011?
Is it possible, just possible that a nation that elected our first Black President can ever refuse to re-elect him without being called "racist"? Let's suppose Obama decides to run again in 2016, notwithstanding the Constitutional prohibition against it, would tose who oppose his third term be allowed to so oppose him on Constitutional grounds without being called "racist"? When, oh when, is any principled opposition to anything Obama wants going to be judged on its merits?I don't think it is a racial issue. It about the fact that 9 times out of 10 the reigning President never has 'gotten the job done' regardless of the accomplishments that took place during his term. That is what the general consensus usually is especially when controversial decisions were made under their leadership: fighting wars, passing legislation that takes lot of the decision making about medical care out of our hands, having an illicit affair during office and getting caught, and on and on.
So while President Obama is black and I do not see this as white vs. black at all. I just see it as the usual hoo ha that comes each election season.Further to the roots of the birther movement. I found this.
Not Hill and Bill but a rabid Hill fan.
Investigating the roots of the Obama birthplace conspiracy theory, Wingnuts author John Avlon uncovers the first Birther—and finds she’s a Hillary Clinton supporter also implicated in Dan Rather’s exit from CBS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … thers.html
And this sums up the problem with winguts on both ends of the spectrum:
Of course, the rush to delegitimize Obama once he was elected president fell to wingnut conservatives, who continue to confuse losing an election with living under tyranny. But this new evidence of the conspiracy theory's roots on the far left is a reminder that wingnuts exist in both parties, wherever anger and absolutism drive people to believe that their political opponents are their personal enemies. Unhinged activists can have a disproportionate influence on our debates.
The far right and the far left can be equally insane, and the extremes end up echoing each otherYes, brilliant. But still, America is a racist country, so how could there not be any racists opposion to Obama? The racists: Are they really wingnuts or just people who are stuck in the effluvia of a Lynching Society, who were taught to hate black Americans and no one ever corrected them.
But let's look a little closeer at hatred. I have hated a lot of white people. White people are always the one's telling me 'no.' Theyr'e the only one's who have tried to kill me. They the only ones who have tried to beat me into submission. They're the first to feel entitled....at least from my perspective.
Again, just saying, trying to convince people that there are more sides to this discussion.
Just asking....Sorry, I should have posted with direct reference to the post I was responding to.
Earlier in the thread it had been asserted -- more than once -- that Hillary Clinton had started the birther movement.
I had never heard that before so thought I would check it out.
Looks like it was the far left alter ego of Orly Taitz.
"How much of the opposition to Obama is about his race?...."
About as much that can be fabricated in the minds of people.Some people voted for him because he was black. Others voted for him because he wasn't black. Its stupid to say that there aren't people who won't vote for him because they disagree with his policies. Its equally as stupid to believe that there isn't some racial context within at least a portion of the opposition to our president. In other words, his being black isn't the main reason why he the GOP hates him, but there may be something to the unprecedented level of dislike for the president.
It is a sick right wing game to throw out racist code words, dog whistle racism and overt racist expressions, then lie and deny that they are racists.
It is not working and the backlash is massive. Most Americans are sick of it. The real problem is that if we let the obviously racist right wing get into any more power, they will finish the job that the Republicans started under the Bush I regime.I'm not sure, but I'd say well over 50%. Many fear and see a black first family in the white house as a treat to white power and their notion that no matter how things were in their lives they are white. They would choose a less qualified white man for president, every time over a superior black man.
Yes, Junko that is unfortunate, the white working class is willing to cook its own goose in order to hold on to the once privileged status of being white. What they don't know is that Corporate power that they are busy worshipping would just as soon feed them to the wolves as well. But in the meantime the rightwing power structure foments racial and class resentment among the unwashed masses to fuel the campaign only to dismiss them once their purpose has been served.
Racism, inspite of claims to the contrary, is still a powerful force in American life.
- Sophia Angeliqueposted 12 years ago0
Well, now. here's an interesting article about Obama and racism... Today's Daily Mail...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -2008.html
"'A few years ago he would've been carrying our bags': New report reveals the insensitive racial remark Bill Clinton made about Barack Obama in 2008." Apart from a handful of real racists, it is my experience that only liberals care about race.
So Nate, does that mean that if a portion of the black people of this country do not like Obama....it's a racial thing? Or does it count when the focus is a white person. Obama has hidden his life away from public scrutiny and he has made an absolute mess of our country....there really is no need for the racial factor. ~WB
Obviously, any form of racism against anyone is racist. I never said otherwise. I also never said everyone who doesn't like Obama is racist. I'm saying it is a factor, clearly, in some cases, blatantly or subtly. There's no need for the racial factor, true. So, why has it become a factor? Political agenda aside, why is it a factor?
Wayne Brown: You are foolish to think that ONE man ONE person can do such things in America- I quote you "he has made an absolute mess of our country.."
You give him far too much credit! Are you even aware of who really controls and pulls the power and purse strings of America and the world???? Not one man certainly! Be realistic THINK!
I think there are (and sadly, perhaps always will be) people who make their assessments about another's worth and abilities, etc, based on race or gender or weight or appearance, etc, etc - but the significant and consequential difference between Obama's (and the general liberal) understanding of and vision for America and the conservative understanding of and vision for America is so vivid and deep-seeded, that any racial bigotry has become irrelevant in regard to the outcome of the election. In fact, many who are delighted that America has elected it's first African-American president stand in opposition to his claiming a 2nd term, and in even further fact, many (relatively speaking) African-Americans stand opposed to Obama serving a 2nd term . . . so, race is not the issue - it's political philosophy and practical policy.
Related Discussions
- 23
98% of African Americans approve of Obama's job as president, is this a racial o
by Right Black 14 years ago
98% of African Americans approve of Obama's job as president, is this a racial or racist component?
- 14
Is the Skin Color and Race of President Obama the reason for the heightened Ant
by ixwa 14 years ago
Is the Skin Color and Race of President Obama the reason for the heightened Antagonism and Racism?
- 48
Opposition to Obama is Based on Racial Animus According to Eric Holder
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
According to CNN and Fox News reports dated July 14, 2004, Attorney General Holder stated that there is opposition to him and President Obama because they are Black. Attorney General Holder maintained that no other president has been criticized in America as much as President...
- 340
Weeks of growing opposition against Obama
by emdi 15 years ago
Are white Americans turning against Barack Obama because of the color of his skin or because of his policies? After lawmaker from South Carolina screamed out "you lie" as Obama delivered a nationally-televised address, former president Carter,suggested its the history of racism that...
- 172
Is The Opposition to President Obama Warranted?
by Beyond-Politics 15 years ago
With so much vocal an organizational opposition to President Obama and his policies (such as they are) after only 9 months in office, is such criticism warranted? Does the opposition reflect minority intolerance, or a fear of growing minority influence?
- 160
What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...