Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

Clinton will have the advantage in foreign policy but GOP will use the "Benghazi Gate" against her but it won't hurt her.

good thing for her she didn't do something like have an associate who phoned in a lane closure on a bridge or something, God forbid.

Look as long as we continue to allow our state sponsored media to dictate who gets a pass and who doesn't we will likely continue down our path of "leaders elected by the uninformed".

And hence the downward spiral morally, economically, and most troubling our foreign policy of ignore it and maybe it will go away by itself.

I've come to the realization that I can not save this country from itself so I'll find a way to shortcut the best way to make it work fr me, I am no longer my brothers keeper, fuck him.

They can still steal my tax dollars to feed the greedy but they can't make me like it.

All else aside I think we need a president with a big set of balls to confront the most obvious threat to our daily existence, which if not addressed I think all else won't matter much anyway.

And from what I see so far Hillary has the biggest set.

So she has my vote as of this moment, but stay tuned.

If you continually voted for candidates (whether Republican or Democrat) who chose to gut the social safety net while lowering taxes on the wealthy, you have never been your brother's keeper.

How are they stealing your tax dollars? Aren't tax dollars meant to be collected by local, state and federal governments? Who else is suppose to collect your "tax" dollars?

When I saw downzy as the most recent post, I was really hoping he was going to get into it with shades.

Ah, nostalgia. :lol:

Don't worry, I was getting there :P

I'm convinced shades is someone's alt account.

Shades has been a member of this forum since 2002. We do not allow alt accounts and would delete/merge alt accounts were we to discover them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then explain to me why he only conveniently shows up when politics is discussed. I don't think it's coincidence.

I don't really care, but I will continue to believe he is another member here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to think the American people wouldn't be stupid enough to elect ANOTHER Bush, but who the hell knows what we're collectively capable of?

After 8 years of Obama, remember no where to go but up

Except for the facts that unemployment is trending down as Obama sets to leave office compared to it skyrocketing while Bush was departing. Deficits have been getting smaller under Obama while growing under Bush. The percent of Americans living in poverty is in decline while it was increasing under Bush's tenure. More Americans have health insurance as the uninsured rate has dropped substantially under Obama while it continually rose under Bush. Fewer American military died under Obama's tenure than during Bush's. Obama's Vice President did NOT shoot a guy in the face; Bush's did.

Then explain to me why he only conveniently shows up when politics is discussed. I don't think it's coincidence.

I don't really care, but I will continue to believe he is another member here.

Do you honestly think that I'd allow Shades to continue posting if he were truly an alt account? Of all the members on here, you really think that I'd give him a pass when it comes to alt accounts?

Perhaps his only interest when it comes to this forum at this point is politics. We have many other members who have stopped posting in the GNR section (though they likely still read others posts) but contribute in other sections of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't it obvious that shades is downzy's alt account? :lol:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't it obvious that shades is downzy's alt account? :lol:

Damn it, my split personality has been discovered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the Obama haters just admit they hate Obama because he isn't white?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I didn't like him then there would be a case, maybe.

Never said I didn't like him, he seems pretty down to earth actually, as Presidents go, and has a lovely family, family relationship thing seems genuine.

But

that doesn't excuse his brainless approach to policy.

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Someone said unemployment was down on his watch? doesn't matter what kind of jobs or the pay I guess, just pad the numbers. wtf

His handout health care plan is a financial impossibility and doomed, he just set it up so we won't know that until he's long gone, and I'm sure liberals will blame it on some future action by a republican.

And his foreign policy is "no strategy" to quote the man himself.

A lot of blood was shed to give Iraqi's and the region a beacon of what can be when people have a chance at their own destiny, and Obama threw it all away,

shame on him.

I can't even listen to liberal argument defending this clown anymore, i'm embarrassed for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

It's a matter of biology versus sociology. If throughout his life he's viewed and treated as a black man, then that's what he is. Biologically speaking Shades and yourself are correct, but what difference does biology make if socially he's treated as black?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

It's a matter of biology versus sociology. If throughout his life he's viewed and treated as a black man, then that's what he is. Biologically speaking Shades and yourself are correct, but what difference does biology make if socially he's treated as black?

Kinda like a bloke in a dress. :lol:
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

It's a matter of biology versus sociology. If throughout his life he's viewed and treated as a black man, then that's what he is. Biologically speaking Shades and yourself are correct, but what difference does biology make if socially he's treated as black?

Thats Shades point, the common association is incorrect and in effect adherent to a racist principle. A fair statement on the part of a man who was being accused of being racist earlier, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

It's a matter of biology versus sociology. If throughout his life he's viewed and treated as a black man, then that's what he is. Biologically speaking Shades and yourself are correct, but what difference does biology make if socially he's treated as black?

Kinda like a bloke in a dress. :lol:

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read Len's response. :lol:

@len

I do see your point, but I think downzy hit the nail on the head. Obama has ID'd himself as black his entire life, and everyone else has treated him that way. I suppose your argument is that he should be considered mixed race? As trasngender people are "transgender", but not men or women?

I was sympathetic towards that argument when I read it in the LSR thread, but when race is discussed using similar parameters it seems to fall apart. Putting someone in a category of "mixed race" or only "transgender" overgeneralizes them, and IMO is a slight to their humanity. Biologically speaking, there are men, women, black people, white people, Asian people, etc...... why rob someone of their personal ID just because it's a bit convoluted due to their parent's decision to mix race. When discussing transgender in the same regard this is where I start to agree with you more, I don't quite understand the notion that a man knows he's actually supposed to be a woman - though it doesn't bother me, I just don't quite understand it. I'm not terribly insulted by the idea that someone can be a transgender man, or transgender woman; or biologically half white/half black, but ID himself/herself as black.

Now a great counter to that is (the roughly opposite to Obama's case), what if a 100% white person is brought up in all black communities by a black family and culturally is in unison with those communities.... does that make him black? Obviously not. But the fact that someone's mixed is a special case, I think we should allow a "choice" (I say choice but it's based on upbringing) of which race they are going to embrace.

This brings upon another point, that I think the whole notion of race is dividing towards humanity, but at the same time, differing customs and the mixing of cultures is part of what makes the world a great place.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@len

I do see your point, but I think downzy hit the nail on the head. Obama has ID'd himself as black his entire life, and everyone else has treated him that way. I suppose your argument is that he should be considered mixed race? As trasngender people are "transgender", but not men or women?

I don't have an argument man, you could call him whatever you like, i was just pointing out that Shades has a point there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@len

I do see your point, but I think downzy hit the nail on the head. Obama has ID'd himself as black his entire life, and everyone else has treated him that way. I suppose your argument is that he should be considered mixed race? As trasngender people are "transgender", but not men or women?

I don't have an argument man, you could call him whatever you like, i was just pointing out that Shades has a point there.

I guess it was more aimed at shades, but the fact that you agreed made me think of the trans post.

Downzy pretty much covered the biological point in response to shades. I will add that it wasn't just the media who told us Obama was black, he ID'd black long before he even considered running for president.

Alright, enough of this for now, gotta go back to thrashing downzy on GoT. :lol:

:ph34r:

I kid, I kid.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's NOT "black" any more than he is white.

If all the presidents before him were African American, and Obama got elected would he then be the first white President?

His MOM is white, I don't get the argument. the media told you he was the first black president so you just act stupid and go along with it?

Fair point here. If one drop theory is the epitomy of racism then aren't we in a sense adhering to a racist principle by referring to him as black?

It's a matter of biology versus sociology. If throughout his life he's viewed and treated as a black man, then that's what he is. Biologically speaking Shades and yourself are correct, but what difference does biology make if socially he's treated as black?

Thats Shades point, the common association is incorrect and in effect adherent to a racist principle. A fair statement on the part of a man who was being accused of being racist earlier, no?

No, that's two different conversations. One is a matter of Obama's racial makeup, and that referring to him simply as a black man ignores his white ancestry. But since race is largely a social construct, particularly in America, Obama's race has been socially constructed as black by supporters and critics alike. Moreover, he walks through life as a black man regardless of his ancestry. It's a matter of identity and identification, which again are social constructs.

Another conversation is whether many of Obama's critics unfairly criticize him because they, and others, perceive him as a black man. The argument that those who took issues with his policies aren't racist because he's not a black man is not sincere nor valid (however, I would never support the argument that any and all criticisms of Obama stem from racists motivations). It's a cop out in my opinion. "I'm not a racists because he's not a black man." Bullshit. No one looks at Barack Obama and says, "there goes a white or multi-racial man" unless they knew his family background. Again, race is a social construct, and as such he's been defined as a black man. As such, many of the policies he put forward and has advocated for have often been perceived through a racial lens, both critics and supporters alike. Anyone who argues that as racially divided as America is, recently evidenced by the controversies surrounding law and order and the black community, that race did not play a factor in the opposition to Obama is not being honest or genuine. I have no idea who Shades is and I have no idea whether his opposition to Obama is based on race. But I do know that much of the grass-roots opposition that sprung up soon after his election (i.e the Tea Party) was a response to a black man occupying the White House. Most of their complaints against Obama were present in Obama's predecessor, yet we saw no opposition to Bush from suburban and rural whites like we did once Obama took over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you're doing is explaining why it is the way it is, thats not a mystery, it doesn't need clearing up, whats being asserted here is that it's incorrect and adherent to a racist principle.

The origins of one drop theory is seated in racism, the idea that if you had ANY black in your ancestry than you were then black...and this is the continuation of it. One could even argue it's turned on it's head a bit because within a certain cross-section of society, when presented with this ideal, would RATHER side with being black, for whatever reason...but point being the principle is seated in prejudice. I (and I'm sure Shades) know WHY it is the way it is, self identification or common association...it still is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you're doing is explaining why it is the way it is, thats not a mystery, it doesn't need clearing up, whats being asserted here is that it's incorrect and adherent to a racist principle.

So there is an argument... and is that not what I debated in my post? That it's not incorrect, because the alternative is worse.

The origins of one drop theory is seated in racism, the idea that if you had ANY black in your ancestry than you were then black...and this is the continuation of it. One could even argue it's turned on it's head a bit because within a certain cross-section of society, when presented with this ideal, would RATHER side with being black, for whatever reason...but point being the principle is seated in prejudice. I (and I'm sure Shades) know WHY it is the way it is, self identification or common association...it still is what it is.

So what's the alternative then? How should these people identify? Are we to say, any lower than 25% black and you're not black, but if you're 27% black, you can ID as black. You're saying that's wrong, I agree, but I haven't seen you posit an alternative. It has to come from cultural upbringing, and partially choice (based on natural experience).

If there is a section of society that wants to abuse the "rule" (precedent is a better word I think) to change their identification, that's a problem with their mentality, not the notion of how mixed race is viewed/identified.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed race, half caste, thats the phrase for it, is it not?

So there is an argument... and is that not what I debated in my post? That it's not incorrect, because the alternative is worse.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude or narky or anything fella, i just didn't know the alternative, i hadn't thought about an alternative, i was really wanting to go balls out into the discussion, was just pointing out that the principle of what Shades was saying is wholly accurate.

Edited by Len B'stard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you're doing is explaining why it is the way it is, thats not a mystery, it doesn't need clearing up, whats being asserted here is that it's incorrect and adherent to a racist principle.

The origins of one drop theory is seated in racism, the idea that if you had ANY black in your ancestry than you were then black...and this is the continuation of it. One could even argue it's turned on it's head a bit because within a certain cross-section of society, when presented with this ideal, would RATHER side with being black, for whatever reason...but point being the principle is seated in prejudice. I (and I'm sure Shades) know WHY it is the way it is, self identification or common association...it still is what it is.

Not that I disagree with much of what you're saying, but I take issue with the argument that opposition to Obama can't be based on race because he really isn't black. Shades attacked Georgy because he accepted the media's narrative that Obama's black when according to Shades, and Obama's own biology, he really he is not. But that's only if we see race as a biological construct, which in America it largely is not. Obama himself identifies himself as black, so accusations that this is all a media driven phenomenon is a bit absurd. Is Obama then racist against his own white self? No, he identifies as being black because that's how he's viewed and treated by others.

Here's how this argument seems to flow, as I understand it:

Person A: I hate everything about Obama's policies from day one.

Person B: you hate everything about Obama because he's black.

Person A: naha, that's not true because he's not really black. The very fact that you see him and accept him as black is more indicative of your own racial prejudices.

If person A disliked Obama from the get go, constantly used erroneous arguments to bolster their claim, and never voiced these concerns when Bush was in power, then it's safe to assume that race is playing a role in their opposition. So what person A is doing here is projecting his/her own racial prejudices against person B within the argument.

Colbert often made fun of this line of reasoning when his character constantly reiterated the point that he can't see race. The idea being that if you can't see race, you can't be racist. It's almost as if their attacking the racial construct to defend their own racial prejudices. "I don't agree with your understanding of race, since I don't see Obama as black or white," but secretly they hate most of his policies largely because of his race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's only if we see race as a biological construct, which in America it largely is not.

Right well then thats wrong. I'm not saying social factors shouldn't factor in but the foundation of ones position about this is based on biologic fact, the biological fact, logically, should be the basis upon which social shit is based, the reality of the matter and not where common association based on a racist principle has taken us 300 years later.

If person A disliked Obama from the get go, constantly used erroneous arguments to bolster their claim, and never voiced these concerns when Bush was in power, then it's safe to assume that race is playing a role in their opposition.

No it's not safe to assume, it's just a total assumption that race is the reason. Thats just you not being able to come to an answer and choosing race as the reason.

Obama himself identifies himself as black, so accusations that this is all a media driven phenomenon is a bit absurd. Is Obama then racist against his own white self? No, he identifies as being black because that's how he's viewed and treated by others.

It's a really dangerous prescedent to say social perception has more weight to it than fact. So, OK, there's a guy whoose an American citizen but was born in China, he identifies as an American, he IS an American as far as the facts of law go...but he lives in a racist society that are like 'well you're not REALLY an American are you, because you weren't born here', would that then make it right because social perception is what should take prescedent?

I don't think Shades is at all racist, i think it's cheap and kinda easy to call him racist. I mean what an idea 'he doesn't seem to like Obama, Bush did some of the same things but he didn't criticise Bush...i guess he just must be a racist!', come on man, I know you don't get on with Shades but you can't think thats right.

Is Obama then racist against his own white self?

Is that not possible? You never heard of mixed race people that, for whatever reason, hate the white in em? Or the black in em? Not saying thats the case or even speculating if it is, it's just you responded to it like as if it was a total impossibility.

Edited by Len B'stard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I never called Shades a racist. As I stated earlier, I have no idea who Shades is and have no clue whether Obama's race factors into his dislike for him.

Your first point speak to what should be and what is. Again, I no issue with that. The concept and understanding of race should be more nuanced than what already exists. No argument there. But again, don't you find it a tad rich that those (and again, not asserting Shades falls into this category) who make the argument that Obama isn't black, that a more measured understanding of race should be followed, often come from those that oppose Obama on all fronts. You may say that there is no connection between opposition of Obama and his race, but as someone who has studied racial relations in the United States extensively, I can state unequivocally that the argument that race doesn't play a major role in his opposition is flat out wrong.

And yes, if a voter supported Bush while he ran up the deficit, pushed through vast expansion of the welfare state, and oversaw the growing reach of the security state but now object to those policies because Obama is in charge, you're either a devout Republican or race is playing a factor. And if race is playing a factor, then fine, be up front about it. If race wasn't a factor, why didn't the Tea Party rise up when Bush was bailing out the banks in 2008? Where were they when Dick Cheney said that deficits don't matter? Why didn't they march on Washington when Bush signed the Patriot Act that stripped away many civil liberties?

What I find rich is when those individuals then claim that they do not see race, that they do not see Obama as a black man, as if they can excuse their own racial prejudices on the basis that the whole racial construct or framework is problematic. Again, it's fucking cop out. You don't get excuse your own racial prejudices because the notion of race are overly simplistic and problematic as it relates to history.

As for your example of an American born in China, I'll give you a true to life example to help illustrate my point. Why was Obama's birthplace such an issue when Ted Cruz's place of birth not? Why do many of the people who opposed Obama as President on the belief that he wasn't born in the United States (when he was, and had the documentation to prove it) now support a candidate who actually wasn't born in the United States (Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and lived here until he was four years old)? Explain to me how there wasn't a racial component to Obama's birth place when no one gives a shit that an actual GOP candidate was born in Canada?

As for Obama hating his white self, I don't see it. In fact, if you've read his book, most of his animosity is directed towards his black father, who abandoned him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I want to reiterate that I don't think all opposition to Obama is based on race. Many of my American relatives can't stand the guy and it has everything to do with Obama being a Democrat. It wouldn't have matter whether Hillary had won in 2008, they still would have hated a Democrat as President. But race has played a factor in the scope and intensity of the opposition Obama has faced. In a country that is as racially divided as the U.S., how could race not play a factor in the kind of a reception the first perceived black President would receive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just put this out there, the US census uses father's race when telling you what box to check. Percentage aside, he is considered black. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×