onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
For the last seven years USA has had a black President. Have his poll numbers been helped or hurt by racism?
J
J
Philosophical/political question
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Hurt, but only people who wouldn't vote for him anyway, helped (and probably more) with those who would.
Helped, probably. He was able to do more evil deeds with less political backlash, because the race card was harder to play.
warpus
In pork I trust
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
This makes zero sense. If the race card was harder to play, then his actions are irrelevant. If his actions are the point, then racism does come into it.
If you are saying that legitimate comments were suppressed by fear of a racist label, then say so.
J
Zkribbler
Deity
Hurt because the GOP was able to energize its base by convincing them Obama is not "one of us."
Therefore, Republicans now see affordable healthcare as evil, see the American economic recovery [which is far better than Europe's] as a failure, see as a negative our plummeting energy prices and the end to dependence upon foreign oil, see our conversion to renewable energy as temporary; see climate change as a myth; see Assad giving up his chemical weapons as our diplomatic failure; see a treaty by which Iran agrees to not pursue building nuclear weapons and to permit inspection as a disaster, and see the avoidance of a second Republican-caused Great Depression as a sure sign that Obama knows nothing about economics.
Sure, the GOP would have tried these smoke-and-mirrors arguments against a white President, but due to racism, they've been more effective against a black President.
Therefore, Republicans now see affordable healthcare as evil, see the American economic recovery [which is far better than Europe's] as a failure, see as a negative our plummeting energy prices and the end to dependence upon foreign oil, see our conversion to renewable energy as temporary; see climate change as a myth; see Assad giving up his chemical weapons as our diplomatic failure; see a treaty by which Iran agrees to not pursue building nuclear weapons and to permit inspection as a disaster, and see the avoidance of a second Republican-caused Great Depression as a sure sign that Obama knows nothing about economics.
Sure, the GOP would have tried these smoke-and-mirrors arguments against a white President, but due to racism, they've been more effective against a black President.
Zkribbler
Deity
Caveat: Gallup has about a 5% conservative bias because of its polling by land-line telephones only. Minorities and the poor tend more to use cell phones.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The rasists disapprove at the moment of the first failing to their impossible standards, whereas the non-racist are judging according to his performance regardless of his race. Nobody is setting the standards lower. Some people might like him more because he's black, but that doesn't make them favor his performance.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
This is an old myth. Gallup is actually more favorable than average, based on the RCP numbers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
J
Exactly right.
Yes, there are quite a lot of people who only use landlines. Me, for instance.
BTW, I may be close to the bottom of the economic ladder (ie. not homeless or in a shelter), and as for minorities, that depends on how you're defining the term.
But at least this landline-user is not a right-wing voter - never have been, never will be.
As for Obama, they'll be arguing for decades as to where he was born and what his real religion is/was. It seems to be the right-wing thing to be obsessed with stuff like that. There are people in Canada convinced that our new Prime Minister is really Muslim because he once spent 2 hours visiting a mosque and the cameras weren't allowed in to film him.
Obama represented real hope for change (phrase totally picked by chance 
). Unfortunately he very quickly showed that he was mostly a continuation of the terrible W Bush gov. He didn't even waste much time prior to making this evident by making a u-turn on his pledge to close gitmo.
All in all the W led to Obama, and i fear the next president of the US is going to be along the same lines. Pretty dangerous too. Police-state and world war brooding could have used an actually trustworthy US president (who would also somehow manage to avoid being executed in JFK style).
). Unfortunately he very quickly showed that he was mostly a continuation of the terrible W Bush gov. He didn't even waste much time prior to making this evident by making a u-turn on his pledge to close gitmo.All in all the W led to Obama, and i fear the next president of the US is going to be along the same lines. Pretty dangerous too. Police-state and world war brooding could have used an actually trustworthy US president (who would also somehow manage to avoid being executed in JFK style).
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,582
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
TBH I'm not convinced the Republicans would have been any more tolerant of a white Democrat. I'm more curious about non-Republicans who still care about politics.
Your apparent lack of understanding about the American political system, I would assume.?
Gitmo isn't closed, and it is 2015 now, not 2008. So what is your 'wut' about?
By the way, why is this thread a philosophical question?
Σθτ
(just greek letters for wut)
And no, i am not buying that. Your presidents had not much issue to force a patriot act on your despite that being a far more drastic move than gitmo. So ultimately you should label it as us politics, not justice system itself.
Yeah because the political climate and general situation is perfectly comparable in those two cases.
Not to defend Obama too much in this case. Of course he promised to immediately shut down Guantanamo without giving much thought to actually implementing this decision. And of course he could have expended more political capital on trying to get it shut down after practical and political obstacles were evidently in the way. But that does not equal reversing his desire to close the camp.
Not to defend Obama too much in this case. Of course he promised to immediately shut down Guantanamo without giving much thought to actually implementing this decision. And of course he could have expended more political capital on trying to get it shut down after practical and political obstacles were evidently in the way. But that does not equal reversing his desire to close the camp.
