Question about Obama and Race

I realize that race/racism is a delicate issue, so I'll try to be careful with my wording here.

I just read an articlein the New York Post (whichtypically leans towards the right) about Obama's polling numbers slipping among black voters. However, hestill has an approval rating of 85%. I could be wrong about this, but it kinda/sorta seems like a LOT of black people support President Obama simply because he's black (or half black I guess). Anyway, isn't this just full-out racism? I never really hear it being discussed at all. Am I wrong thinking that this is all about race? That is, if Obama had an 85% disapproval rating among white voters, I kinda/sorta feel like there would be screams about racism.

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

African Americans normally vote democrat, so it's not about race so much. I think the huge voter turnout was due to race though.

You would have to put it in context. Compare his approval rating among black voters to other democrats.

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

DeepSigh

lol win

to be honest there are probably a lot of black people who love Obama because he is the first black president (half black, whatever), but you will rarely hear about racism when it isn't based around hate. It's kind of hard for people to respond to racism that isn't actually hating others with hate of their own without looking horrible in the process.

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

DeepSigh

Not surprising. I don't think the black vote will ever turn on Obama.

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

Did a quick search and some of you guys were right. Clinton had near 90% ratings among black voters for about the same time period.

Did a quick search and some of you guys were right. Clinton had near 90% ratings among black voters for about the same time period.

YellowOneKinobi

That's because Clinton was black.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Did a quick search and some of you guys were right. Clinton had near 90% ratings among black voters for about the same time period.

Necrifer

That's because Clinton was black.

Did a quick search and some of you guys were right. Clinton had near 90% ratings among black voters for about the same time period.

YellowOneKinobi

African Americans normally vote democrat, so it's not about race so much. I think the huge voter turnout was due to race though.

Espada12

The huge voter turnout was due to Obama not being Bush.

I'm thinking the same is going to happen in 2012.

The huge voter turnout was due to Obama not being Bush.

I'm thinking the same is going to happen in 2012.

airshocker

Of course.

I think a lot of the blacks that would have never voted before ie, from inner city communities just wont vote this time. If they are not happy that there was no change in their neighborhood they simply will not vote, they know Republicans will do nothing for them and if a black man can't then no one will.KlownMaster

You would have to put it in context. Compare his approval rating among black voters to other democrats.

sonicare

Context, context, context.

Any little statistical tidbit can be manipulated/spun to mean anything.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

African Americans normally vote democrat, so it's not about race so much. I think the huge voter turnout was due to race though.

airshocker

The huge voter turnout was due to Obama not being Bush.

I'm thinking the same is going to happen in 2012.

Neither side has a very good/appealing candidate, whatwith Obama being center-left and most republican candidates being either wingnuts or novelty candidates.

I guess Tim Pawlenty would probably have the best chance, just out of pure obscurity.

Eh, I can't see there being that high of a voter turn out.

Neither side has a very good/appealing candidate, whatwith Obama being center-left and most republican candidates being either wingnuts or novelty candidates.

I guess Tim Pawlenty would probably have the best chance, just out of pure obscurity.

jaydough

Hey, we agree on something. I like Tim Pawlenty. He's a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Really can't get much better than that when it comes to finding a candidate that can appeal to both sides.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

Eh, I can't see there being that high of a voter turn out.

Neither side has a very good/appealing candidate, whatwith Obama being center-left and most republican candidates being either wingnuts or novelty candidates.

I guess Tim Pawlenty would probably have the best chance, just out of pure obscurity.

airshocker

Hey, we agree on something. I like Tim Pawlenty. He's a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Really can't get much better than that when it comes to finding a candidate that can appeal to both sides.

But, I do think that his promise of reinstating DADT and his declaring of solidarity with the family research council sort of disqualifies him from being socially moderate.

Maybe center-right, which is rather refreshing, considering his peers.

WITH THAT SAID, I'm still not voting for him. I'm looking for a candidate that's both fiscally and socially liberal. Bernie Sanders is really the only fiscal liberal that I can think of, and I really haven't found an American politician who I can call socially liberal.

God damn it, Anthony Wiener, just stop supporting Israel and the drug wars and I'd go gay for you. :P

I won't lie to you, I belive that a lot of people support him because he IS black. My grandfather said that blacks have been treated so badly though out the years that having a black man as president helps them see that anything is possible for the black race.

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

DeepSigh

I would guess that there are a whole lot more white people who disapprove of him just because he is black than black people who approve of him because he is black. The simple fact is race is still a huge issue but people try to dismiss and ignore it.

[QUOTE="DeepSigh"]

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

surrealnumber5

Then you'd better approve of him. No room for intolerance in this forum.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="DeepSigh"]

He's not white or black. So everyone who disapproves of him is being racist. :evil:

Apart from other mixed-race people.

DeepSigh

Then you'd better approve of him. No room for intolerance in this forum.

I would guess that there are a whole lot more white people who disapprove of him just because he is black than black people who approve of him because he is black. The simple fact is race is still a huge issue but people try to dismiss and ignore it.

bballer1024

I would guess

bballer1024

There isn't really that much to back that up, though.

Well, I was basically saying his appeal was that he hasn't said anything outright damnable unlike the other candidates, but you are right, I guess.

But, I do think that his promise of reinstating DADT and his declaring of solidarity with the family research council sort of disqualifies him from being socially moderate.

Maybe center-right, which is rather refreshing, considering his peers.

WITH THAT SAID, I'm still not voting for him. I'm looking for a candidate that's both fiscally and socially liberal. Bernie Sanders is really the only fiscal liberal that I can think of, and I really haven't found an American politician who I can call socially liberal.

God damn it, Anthony Wiener, just stop supporting Israel and the drug wars and I'd go gay for you. :P

jaydough

I don't think anything would ever happen on the DADT front. For one, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the other problems America has at the moment. And two, people could give two s**** about gays serving openly in the military when they can't find jobs, or afford to fill up their tanks.

Poor Obama. :( To be honest, the guy gets a lot of flak. His platform was built heavily on making public healthcare possible, and people seemed to like that idea a lot when he was talking about it. Then he goes and does it, and people start turning on him and hating him for it. He was probably confused for a hell of a long time about the whole situation.Lockedge

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]Poor Obama. :( To be honest, the guy gets a lot of flak. His platform was built heavily on making public healthcare possible, and people seemed to like that idea a lot when he was talking about it. Then he goes and does it, and people start turning on him and hating him for it. He was probably confused for a hell of a long time about the whole situation.YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

Well, I was basically saying his appeal was that he hasn't said anything outright damnable unlike the other candidates, but you are right, I guess.

But, I do think that his promise of reinstating DADT and his declaring of solidarity with the family research council sort of disqualifies him from being socially moderate.

Maybe center-right, which is rather refreshing, considering his peers.

WITH THAT SAID, I'm still not voting for him. I'm looking for a candidate that's both fiscally and socially liberal. Bernie Sanders is really the only fiscal liberal that I can think of, and I really haven't found an American politician who I can call socially liberal.

God damn it, Anthony Wiener, just stop supporting Israel and the drug wars and I'd go gay for you. :P

airshocker

I don't think anything would ever happen on the DADT front. For one, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the other problems America has at the moment. And two, people could give two s**** about gays serving openly in the military when they can't find jobs, or afford to fill up their tanks.

And yeah, I guess fiscal conservatism has been looking appealing to the average person I meet, which is unfortunate, considering that it's likely what got us into this mess in the first place.

[spoiler] ALSO, I have 40 mg of vyvanse (basically ritalin, for my adhd) coursing through me, so I have the patience of a god damned sloth right now. So if it seems like I'm arguing with you, I'm not. I'm just making conversation which is a bit hard when our views on the subject differ so much IIRC. [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]Poor Obama. :( To be honest, the guy gets a lot of flak. His platform was built heavily on making public healthcare possible, and people seemed to like that idea a lot when he was talking about it. Then he goes and does it, and people start turning on him and hating him for it. He was probably confused for a hell of a long time about the whole situation.Lockedge

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

Well, I was basically saying his appeal was that he hasn't said anything outright damnable unlike the other candidates, but you are right, I guess.

But, I do think that his promise of reinstating DADT and his declaring of solidarity with the family research council sort of disqualifies him from being socially moderate.

Maybe center-right, which is rather refreshing, considering his peers.

WITH THAT SAID, I'm still not voting for him. I'm looking for a candidate that's both fiscally and socially liberal. Bernie Sanders is really the only fiscal liberal that I can think of, and I really haven't found an American politician who I can call socially liberal.

God damn it, Anthony Wiener, just stop supporting Israel and the drug wars and I'd go gay for you. :P

airshocker

I don't think anything would ever happen on the DADT front. For one, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the other problems America has at the moment. And two, people could give two s**** about gays serving openly in the military when they can't find jobs, or afford to fill up their tanks.

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

GreySeal9

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

Poor Obama. :( To be honest, the guy gets a lot of flak. His platform was built heavily on making public healthcare possible, and people seemed to like that idea a lot when he was talking about it. Then he goes and does it, and people start turning on him and hating him for it. He was probably confused for a hell of a long time about the whole situation.Lockedge

What happened is that the Republicans were able to construct the narrative on the issue (in a very dishonest way) and Democrats just got walked all over like usual.

I realize that race/racism is a delicate issue, so I'll try to be careful with my wording here.

I just read an articlein the New York Post (whichtypically leans towards the right) about Obama's polling numbers slipping among black voters. However, hestill has an approval rating of 85%. I could be wrong about this, but it kinda/sorta seems like a LOT of black people support President Obama simply because he's black (or half black I guess). Anyway, isn't this just full-out racism? I never really hear it being discussed at all. Am I wrong thinking that this is all about race? That is, if Obama had an 85% disapproval rating among white voters, I kinda/sorta feel like there would be screams about racism.

YellowOneKinobi

I wonder how many people voted for McCain last election BECAUSE he was white...

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

YellowOneKinobi

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

It was repealed in Congress.

Poor Obama. :( To be honest, the guy gets a lot of flak. His platform was built heavily on making public healthcare possible, and people seemed to like that idea a lot when he was talking about it. Then he goes and does it, and people start turning on him and hating him for it. He was probably confused for a hell of a long time about the whole situation.Lockedge

In my mind, he compromised way too much, but overall the health care bill was a success. It just seems that the rhetoric has made him lose favor with otherwise moderate conservatives.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

YellowOneKinobi

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

True, but we were still worse off financially when we were doing the whole "ZOMG 9/11 TERROR MOSQUE" thing and we still kept hammering that point in.

And yeah, I guess fiscal conservatism has been looking appealing to the average person I meet, which is unfortunate, considering that it's likely what got us into this mess in the first place.

ALSO, I have 40 mg of vyvanse (basically ritalin, for my adhd) coursing through me, so I have the patience of a god damned sloth right now. So if it seems like I'm arguing with you, I'm not. I'm just making conversation which is a bit hard when our views on the subject differ so much IIRC.

jaydough

What other choice is there when politicians can't spend responsibly when our economy is doing well?

Deficit spending may be the right thing to do in a recession, but politicians don't stop when we're recovering. Maybe a true fiscal conservative can change that.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

I realize that race/racism is a delicate issue, so I'll try to be careful with my wording here.

I just read an articlein the New York Post (whichtypically leans towards the right) about Obama's polling numbers slipping among black voters. However, hestill has an approval rating of 85%. I could be wrong about this, but it kinda/sorta seems like a LOT of black people support President Obama simply because he's black (or half black I guess). Anyway, isn't this just full-out racism? I never really hear it being discussed at all. Am I wrong thinking that this is all about race? That is, if Obama had an 85% disapproval rating among white voters, I kinda/sorta feel like there would be screams about racism.

Netherscourge

I wonder how many people voted for McCain last election BECAUSE he was white...

In fact, it almost definitely worked against him, seeing as he was continuing a trend of the past couple of s***ty presidents; being old and white made him seem more like Bush 2.

Though, keeping the past few years in mind, it seems it would've been fair to judge the book by its cover.

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

GreySeal9

None, which is why I don't think he's going to. Or even give a real effort on the matter if he did win the Presidency.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

airshocker

None, which is why I don't think he's going to. Or even give a real effort on the matter if he did win the Presidency.

So you think he's just trying to shore up his base?

I think that's likely.

So you think he's just trying to shore up his base?

I think that's likely.

GreySeal9

Yeah, I think he's making a token effort to the more social conservative folk. From what he has done in Minnesota, he hasn't been a big champion on conservative social issues. Where he shines is with fiscal matters.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

True, but we were still worse off financially when we were doing the whole "ZOMG 9/11 TERROR MOSQUE" thing and we still kept hammering that point in.

And yeah, I guess fiscal conservatism has been looking appealing to the average person I meet, which is unfortunate, considering that it's likely what got us into this mess in the first place.

ALSO, I have 40 mg of vyvanse (basically ritalin, for my adhd) coursing through me, so I have the patience of a god damned sloth right now. So if it seems like I'm arguing with you, I'm not. I'm just making conversation which is a bit hard when our views on the subject differ so much IIRC.

airshocker

What other choice is there when politicians can't spend responsibly when our economy is doing well?

Deficit spending may be the right thing to do in a recession, but politicians don't stop when we're recovering. Maybe a true fiscal conservative can change that.

Republicans

• Spending a bit less overall than Democrats
• Cutting funding to various minor expenses at possible high cost
  • Cutting the funding of NPR and Planned Parenthood, EPA environmental regulation/programs
• Cutting funding to various welfare/healthcare programs
• Keeping military spending roughly the same
• In extreme cases, advocating "starving the beast"

Democrats

• Spending a bit more overall than Republicans
• Increasing funding for welfare and all of that
• Cutting military spending and all that

Really, when you consider our priorities (fixing the whole unemployment thing, bridging the gap between the lower and upper class) the Democrats' idea of spending responsibly seems a bit more responsible-er than the Republican's.

Though, in my mind, both are bad, and we need a true fiscal liberal ON TOP OF a social liberal who is willing to cut military spending and get us out of the 2 and a half wars that we're fighting, if we were to try to fix the deficit.

BUT, I don't really think that the deficit is the problem, so much as the unemployment and wealth disparity yadda yadda yadda hippie bullcrap.

I forgot to proof-read that before I hit 'submit,' so most likely that is a trainwreck of a post.

Sry.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

Well, I was basically saying his appeal was that he hasn't said anything outright damnable unlike the other candidates, but you are right, I guess.

But, I do think that his promise of reinstating DADT and his declaring of solidarity with the family research council sort of disqualifies him from being socially moderate.

Maybe center-right, which is rather refreshing, considering his peers.

WITH THAT SAID, I'm still not voting for him. I'm looking for a candidate that's both fiscally and socially liberal. Bernie Sanders is really the only fiscal liberal that I can think of, and I really haven't found an American politician who I can call socially liberal.

God damn it, Anthony Wiener, just stop supporting Israel and the drug wars and I'd go gay for you. :P

I don't think anything would ever happen on the DADT front. For one, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the other problems America has at the moment. And two, people could give two s**** about gays serving openly in the military when they can't find jobs, or afford to fill up their tanks.

DADT's all ready been repealed, so Pawlenty would be an ass if he re-instating it. I mean, even if you don't think it's an important issue, what argument is there for actually re-instating it?

Well, it all depends on your definition of spending responsibly. In my mind, it seems like we don't really have a choice between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. Seems like we have a generally:

Republicans

• Spending a bit less overall than Democrats
• Cutting funding to various minor expenses at possible high cost
  • Cutting the funding of NPR and Planned Parenthood, EPA environmental regulation/programs
• Cutting funding to various welfare/healthcare programs
• Keeping military spending roughly the same
• In extreme cases, advocating "starving the beast"

Democrats

• Spending a bit more overall than Republicans
• Increasing funding for welfare and all of that
• Cutting military spending and all that

Really, when you consider our priorities (fixing the whole unemployment thing, bridging the gap between the lower and upper class) the Democrats' idea of spending responsibly seems a bit more responsible-er than the Republican's.

Though, in my mind, both are bad, and we need a true fiscal liberal ON TOP OF a social liberal who is willing to cut military spending and get us out of the 2 and a half wars that we're fighting, if we were to try to fix the deficit.

BUT, I don't really think that the deficit is the problem, so much as the unemployment and wealth disparity yadda yadda yadda hippie bullcrap.

jaydough

NPR already said they can survive on their own without government assistance. I say let 'em. I really don't have an opinion on Planned Parenthood. But they are non-essential in my eyes. Perhaps it's just my state, but NY offers a lot of help to women that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.

To me spending responsibly means keeping taxes as low as possible while being able to support our military---with some cuts, because even Secretary Gates says there's some waste---our government, infrastructure and all other essential programs to include our safety nets.

I can even deal with letting some Bush tax cuts expire, so long as small business owners get exempt from the tax increases. Reports have already shown they are the biggest job creators in the country and we need to help them as much as possible.

I also think we should end all ag subsidies. Those are far preferable than ending oil subsidies because everyone benefits from lower gas prices.

I just can't get behind a candidate that doesn't look out for me. Social and fiscal liberals don't look out for me.