|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's the Tea Party, which first started under Bush and got really underway after Obamacare.
Obviously a very general statement, but it's not because he's a Democrat alone.
Edit again: though "unprecedented" I think is a little too strong. We had shutdowns, for instance, under every president since Carter, if not earlier.
|
United States43676 Posts
I don't think we'd be seeing the "he's not even American, he's a Muslim Manchurian candidate" if he was white.
|
On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat?
I'd say it's not just that he's a Democrat, but that the Republican party is going through a shift in its nature to be more obstructionist, and to simply be farther right with less of an emphasis on pragmatism. Being more ideological and less pragmatic inevitably leads to more obstruction and gridlock, as does simply being farther away from the other side on the issues.
I think the Republicans would likely have been similarly obstructionist to any Democratic president; or even worse if it had been Hillary in '08, since they really hated Hillary (and still do).
|
On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat?
I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles.
I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama.
That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents.
|
On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents.
What racist remarks?
I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it.
Edit: memory could be fuzzy, but they were local something.
|
On September 27 2015 05:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I'd say it's not just that he's a Democrat, but that the Republican party is going through a shift in its nature to be more obstructionist, and to simply be farther right with less of an emphasis on pragmatism. Being more ideological and less pragmatic inevitably leads to more obstruction and gridlock, as does simply being farther away from the other side on the issues. I think the Republicans would likely have been similarly obstructionist to any Democratic president; or even worse if it had been Hillary in '08, since they really hated Hillary (and still do).
If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination (and especially if she becomes president), I would bet money that there are going to be a lot of overtly sexist comments coming from the peanut gallery in Fox News and the Republican Party.
|
On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it.
You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year?
Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/
And that's just one of many websites...
|
On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites...
So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link.
I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me.
And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I see it as something political opponents latched onto after the Democrat primary.
|
On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way.
So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has.
|
Othering (making people out to be an "other" outside of the ingroup, and denigrating them) is quite common. If the President were a white democrat they wouldn't use race, they'd simply use some other method of Othering; there's no shortage of characteristics or accusations that can be used against someone to paint them that way.
|
On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so.
I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes.
How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me. Especially since there's never been such a birther issue before with a "clearly white" president.
|
On September 27 2015 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes. How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me.
The same (unfortunately large) demographic of people who believed the whole Birther idiocy are the same ones that believe 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing never happened and Roswell has aliens.
You don't have to be racist to be stupid.
|
On September 27 2015 05:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I'd say it's not just that he's a Democrat, but that the Republican party is going through a shift in its nature to be more obstructionist, and to simply be farther right with less of an emphasis on pragmatism. Being more ideological and less pragmatic inevitably leads to more obstruction and gridlock, as does simply being farther away from the other side on the issues. I think the Republicans would likely have been similarly obstructionist to any Democratic president; or even worse if it had been Hillary in '08, since they really hated Hillary (and still do).
Yeah that makes a lot of sense actually. thanks  exactly the kind of answer is was looking for
|
On September 27 2015 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes. How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me. Especially since there's never been such a birther issue before.
I just don't see many, if any, of those as being racist, and the fact that the author doesn't have basic reading comprehension doesn't help. As another example, we had people in this very thread criticizing Clarence Thomas for his opinions on Affirmative Action since "they probably benefited him." These are statements that could be taken as racist, if you wanted to. But they aren't. The worst one in that whole list is a stupid facebook post with a watermelon.
Birtherism:
Because it's never been used in a primary before. You are forgetting this first came up in the Democrat primary, and it's something Obama opponents have latched onto, given his family history. If the rumor wasn't started in election season, it wouldn't be a thing.
|
That people think believing that the President is a foreign born Muslim isn't racist, is hilarious and sad at the same time.
|
On September 27 2015 06:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes. How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me. The same (unfortunately large) demographic of people who believed the whole Birther idiocy are the same ones that believe 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing never happened and Roswell has aliens. You don't have to be racist to be stupid.
I agree that you don't have to be racist to be stupid, but these aren't just a few stupid conspiracy theorists that everyone laughs off. It's not some weird cult of a dozen hillbilly rednecks who are uneducated nutjobs. This was the entire span and spectrum of the Republican party, many of whom are politicians and on the news non-stop promoting this birther issue. These are the people who regularly hold the limelight in conservative politics. This was a serious attack that was taken seriously by even the intelligent and highest-level Republicans. And to not recognize it as the racist attack it was is to do a disservice to the level of intellectual honesty that we should be having about race relations in this country.
|
Many racists are probably birthers, but I see no reason to assume the reverse.
|
On September 27 2015 06:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes. How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me. Especially since there's never been such a birther issue before. I just don't see many, if any, of those as being racist, and the fact that the author doesn't have basic reading comprehension doesn't help. As another example, we had people in this very thread criticizing Clarence Thomas for his opinions on Affirmative Action since "they probably benefited him." These are statements that could be taken as racist, if you wanted to. But they aren't. The worst one in that whole list is a stupid facebook post with a watermelon. Birtherism: Because it's never been used in a primary before. You are forgetting this first came up in the Democrat primary, and it's something Obama opponents have latched onto, given his family history. If the rumor wasn't started in election season, it wouldn't be a thing.
If he wasn't half-black, it wouldn't be a thing.
There's absolutely no way that someone can say- with a straight face and a clear conscience- that the birther issue could have reasonably happened to Hillary or Romney or McCain or any white presidential candidate. I mean, for crying out loud, McCain was actually born in Panama and Ted Cruz was actually born in Canada, which should at least seem weird to some people (even though they can both legally run for president) compared to a guy who was born in Hawaii.
|
On September 27 2015 05:58 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education. And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom. As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds. How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way. So your saying a child born to rich wealthy parents who goes to private school would outperform a underprivileged child even if the rich kids parents didnt give a shit about his grades? If the unprivileged child's family focuses heavily on securing a good education for their child they would kick the rich kids ass. Having a solid family unit is far more beneficial to a child than how much money their parent has.
This is pretty much the tenth time that you've disregarded the fact that everyone has been telling you that managing the money correctly is a vital part of educational success. And no one is saying that the family unit isn't important, but you can't just assume that a wealthy family is going to typically be worse off as a family unit than one who is struggling to make ends meet.
|
On September 27 2015 06:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 06:05 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:54 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:46 Introvert wrote:On September 27 2015 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing. I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat? I think it's important to establish how we could even assess a Yes or No answer to these race-related questions, or else everyone is going to keep going around in circles. I would think that the statement "The Republicans are against Obama solely because of political reasons and not for racial reasons" would be considered true if Republicans don't make/ haven't made racist remarks aimed at Obama. That being said, many racist remarks against Obama and the First Family have been made by the Republican party, Fox News, and other popular conservatives, so I think race has something to do with the way Obama has been viewed and treated by the Republican party. I can't recall many racist remarks being made about any of the white presidents. What racist remarks? I can think of two by random state politicians, but that's it. You mean besides the hundreds of remarks related to the birther issue, which was a topic that many top Republicans/ conservatives/ anti-Obama politicians (especially Trump) made? There's a 0% chance that the birther issue regarding Obama wasn't absolutely racist, and that talking point lasted for... months? Over a year? Here's a list of remarks and actions made by Newt Gringrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jennifer Olsen, Jon Husted, and a few others: http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/ And that's just one of many websites... So you couldn't think of anything, you took the first google link. I've gone through this before, but I don't think those are racist statements. For instance, criticizing Obama for putting on an accent like Hillary once did doesn't seem racist to me. And birtherism isn't racist, at least I don't see it as so. I thought of plenty of instances, but this specific website was more comprehensive. I don't see how you saying "You didn't post one specific quote, but you posted dozens!" is supposed to be a counterargument and refutation that there aren't quotes. How would you classify the birther issue then, if not racist? Because it's a 100% illegitimate pursuit, his birth and documents have been as clear and as vetted as any other president ever, and the idea that a half-black president must secretly be born in Africa sounds pretty racist to me. Especially since there's never been such a birther issue before. I just don't see many, if any, of those as being racist, and the fact that the author doesn't have basic reading comprehension doesn't help. As another example, we had people in this very thread criticizing Clarence Thomas for his opinions on Affirmative Action since "they probably benefited him." These are statements that could be taken as racist, if you wanted to. But they aren't. The worst one in that whole list is a stupid facebook post with a watermelon. Birtherism: Because it's never been used in a primary before. You are forgetting this first came up in the Democrat primary, and it's something Obama opponents have latched onto, given his family history. If the rumor wasn't started in election season, it wouldn't be a thing. If he wasn't half-black, it wouldn't be a thing. There's absolutely no way that someone can say- with a straight face and a clear conscience- that the birther issue could have reasonably happened to Hillary or Romney or McCain or any white presidential candidate. I mean, for crying out loud, McCain was actually born in Panama and Ted Cruz was actually born in Canada, which should at least seem weird to some people (even though they can both legally run for president) compared to a guy who was born in Hawaii.
There are a significant number of birthers who think Cruz is ineligible to be president. And people wondered about McCain until the law was explained. Unfortunately I think it's the fact that Obama's father was Kenyan. And like I said, this was started by Democrat operatives. It wasn't some right-wing ahole who though this up. Some just took it and ran with it.
I don't know, debating birtherism is so boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
