The 2016 Elections

[hamlet]

I think there is a whiff of racism in criticism of Obama-- a sort of gut feeling that no Black man can lead a competent administration. But NO MORE than a whiff. Plenty of people have advocated a single payer--including on these boards-- but there is so much other support of the idea that any racism would be buried.

As to sexism of Clinton: who knows?

So, does that mean that if I criticize Obama, then I am a racist, even if only slightly?

Nice to know.

[The Heretic]

I think there is a whiff of racism in criticism of Obama-- a sort of gut feeling that no Black man can lead a competent administration. But NO MORE than a whiff. Plenty of people have advocated a single payer--including on these boards-- but there is so much other support of the idea that any racism would be buried.

As to sexism of Clinton: who knows?

So, does that mean that if I criticize Obama, then I am a racist, even if only slightly?

Nice to know.

Definitely a racist if you are criticizing him because you are against something he is doing.
I'm not quite sure how it works if your criticism is not that you are against something he is doing, but rather that you want him to go even further (possibly that is the whiff)...

[portia]

The "Whiff" of racism is a suspicion that an idea espoused and pushed by a Black Man is subject to some uncertainty because of his race. Unfortunately, I have met such people. There are plenty of other reasons to disagree with the Admin's positions, but you might be surprised how often "code words" appear in such discussions.

I am also puzzled by how often the elements of the ACA are approved of individually, but when Obama's name is attached to them, the approval goes down.

[hamlet]

I'm sure you have met such people. There are certainly a number of them.

But the thing is you're now using it is a blanket means of ignoring any counter opinion no matter what. You can just chalk it up to racism and go on your merry way feeling superior. It's precisely the same as when you gripe about how Republicans label people as unpatriotic and ignore the substance of the argument.

[portia]

I do not recall chalking opposition up to racism. Where does that appear?

[hamlet]

I do not recall chalking opposition up to racism. Where does that appear?

How else is one to interpret "I think there is a whiff of racism in criticism of Obama-- a sort of gut feeling that no Black man can lead a competent administration."? According to that sentence, all criticism of Obama and his policies has, at least, "the whiff of racism."

[portia]

Probably not ion these boards, but if you keep interpreting what people say so broadly, you may find yourself in hotter water than you expect.

[hamlet]

Probably not ion these boards, but if you keep interpreting what people say so broadly, you may find yourself in hotter water than you expect.

Then you'll actually have to explain how else to interpret your comment. Otherwise, I'm just going to go ahead and go with my first impression.

[portia]

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I did have a comment on the Rand Paul/Trump exchange. If Paul was setting a trap, Trump fell into it, headfirst and arms flailing. Paul commented on the quality of Trump's comments about other people and Trump's response could have been written by the Junior High person Paul mentioned.

We do not need a person who thinks at that level. Junior High thinking will not enable anyone to deal with world problems. One possible reason for raising the eligibility to 35 for President was to get people who had outgrown those responses.

[portia]

Another comment on the candidates, was a visceral response to Fiorina's comment about veto-ing the Planned Parenthood bill.

HOW IS INTERFERING IN PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS A CONSERVATIVE POSITION?? IT IS A BIG GOVERNMENT DECISION. Making it harder for people to make their own decisions on parenthood is not a Conservative position.
People seem to have been set on that track and now cannot think about what they are advocating.

[portia]

Another comment on Rand Paul:

He says he would not send troops to Iraq. Fair enough. Let them settle their own problems, and maybe get help from the Gulf States.

HOWEVER, The US is notoriously weasel-willed when pictures start coming on the TV of people getting killed, whatever and there would be some Senator who--ignoring the reasons for letting the area settle its own controversies-- would demand intervention. From what I hear, Paul, himself, would not give in but you can bet the rest of the USA would. So, we would accomplish nothing and probably be in a worse position than if we had intervened.

[portia]

To-nite, Trump will be in an odd position, 2d place.
It will be interesting to see how he reacts.

Carson is a much more low key person, but I have been listening to some of his statements. Yeow!
He thinks that allowing women to have abortions on their own decision is like slavery? I'd say the reverse is true.

[portia]

I think that George Bush SR. comments on Rumsfeld are spot on. He has been intimating the same for years and was always correct. Too bad Rumsfeld couldn't have found a more graceful reply. Maybe shows his character.
_________________
We Gop-ers seem to have replaced a showman-nut with a MD Nut. some of the statements made--and re-iterated-- are truly bizarre. Excuse me: Joseph built the pyramids to store grain (?) Where? It would not hold much, in the various passages.
There is also a very basic problem with the Nazi story. How many guns would have been necessary, to counter the Nazi and SS forces? Why would there ave been that many guns used,when most of the German people were at least indifferent to what the Nazis were doing.

Beware. Just because the person has an advanced degree, and speaks softly, it still may not make any sense.

[RoseMorninStar]

The crazy cart has definitely arrived. We need a smilie with a straight jacket.

[Frelga]

Re Carson's Holocaust comments - I really wish someone would ask him if the same logic applies to the interment of Japanese Americans during the WWII.

The pyramids were mostly built to store stone.

[portia]

If Trump should be elected (Heavens, No) he would still have to get a large plan ($400-600 Billion??) through Congress. Fat chance. This is a good example of a Campaign promise that no-one should take seriously as something that will happen. A clue to Trump's mental processes, or a clue as to how seriously he expects to be taken, possibly.

Actually, this campaign is FULL of campaign promises that need not be taken at face value. If someone complains that an elected person didn't produce the results, or that an un elected person could have produced, if elected, they will deserve all the snarky, derision they get.

All campaign promises are just so much smoke. No one will hold the candidates to account; now or ever. If one of them is elected, no one will bother to follow up with what can be done with the campaign promises. They will be forgotten in the press of new problems that will arise. A campaign promise can state anything; it doesn't matter what. Those who take them seriously will be disappointed; and deserve it.

[portia]

This is me, twiddling my fingers for two more months until IOWA. Until then, its all fog, anyway.

Actually, based on prior results, its all fog for a long time after IOWA, too.

[Billobob]

The "Whiff" of racism is a suspicion that an idea espoused and pushed by a Black Man is subject to some uncertainty because of his race. Unfortunately, I have met such people. There are plenty of other reasons to disagree with the Admin's positions, but you might be surprised how often "code words" appear in such discussions.

I am also puzzled by how often the elements of the ACA are approved of individually, but when Obama's name is attached to them, the approval goes down.

I really haven't detected such a "whiff" a lot of people hate Obama simply because he wasn't the savior people thought he'd be. And people hate nothing more than a fallen hero or a false hero. I'm not saying that people don't like his administration for other reasons but the one I just stated seems to be one of the biggest.

[RoseMorninStar]

I have a neighbor who claims she isn't racist and that she doesn't hate Obama because he's black, it's because of his policies. But on her facebook page she often 'likes' or posts very racist comments (which she claims are not racist). But a very dark photo of President Obama (much darker than he really is) with the words 'Half-bred savage' has me thinking she doth protest too much. She's says she's fine with black people.. but becoming President doesn't fit her notions of a 'proper place' I am guessing.

Trump claims to be the "least racist person there is" which is laughable.

[hamlet]

So, is it actually possible to dislike Obama based on his policies and governance rather than his race?

[Minardil]

Well sure, Hamlet, of course it is possible to disapprove of the President’s policies without being a racist, but then, in today’s world where Conservative opinion is driven largely by Fox News and Talk Radio, you’d have to demonstrate to me that the policy of his that you didn’t like was an actual policy of his, and not something that Sean Hannity just pulled out of his . . . .rear end. But sure, it IS POSSIBLE to disagree with the President for reasons OTHER than racism. THAT said, just because it is possible to disagree with the President and NOT be a racist doesn’t mean that racism is NOT a factor in much of the rancor and disrespect given to the President. For instance, when my Brother makes jokes about the President being an African Chimp, I’d say that is pretty racist. When the guy I was talking to in the bar a while back complains that everything is so “politically correct that ya can’t even call the President a n!gg3r anymore”, I’m pretty sure THAT was pretty damn racist. When one of my friends on Facebook backs up his arguments against the President by linking to an article on neo-Nazi White Supremacist site “Stormfront”, I’m pretty sure THAT is pretty damn racist, I don’t even have to read the article.
And it isn’t just criticism of the President.
When commentators on the Right automatically claim that any unarmed black man who is killed by the police is a “thug” who deserved to be shot because he didn’t immediately obey police commands, but these same commentators think Cliven Bundy and his band of armed rebels are Patriots and Heroes for literally threatening to kill Law Enforcement officers, well, you might be a little bit racist.
When you think that Donald Trump is just “telling it like it is” when he claims that most Mexicans are rapists and criminals, you might be a little bit racist.
When you think that Ted Cruz has the right idea when he says he’ll “carpet bomb Syria and make the sand glow” to get rid of ISIS and incidentally killing millions of innocent Syrians in the bargain, you might be a little bit racist.
When you want to bar people entry to our country based on their religion, you might be a little bit racist.
When you routinely claim that people of Color are street criminals and welfare cheats who do nothing but lay about living off your tax money, you might be a little bit racist.
When you’re the Republican governor of a large state like, say Michigan, and you poison the drinking water of a largely black city like, say Flint, just to save $100 a day on the chemical that would make the water safe, you might be a little bit racist.
When you’re at a rally for Trump, and a Muslim woman stands silently in protest, and you jeer and hurl insults at her as she is dragged out by police, you might be a racist.

I could go on, but I assume you get the point. Racism is alive and well and very ugly on the Right, and with the rhetoric being bandied about by your leading candidates, particularly Trump and Cruz, it is only getting worse. YOU aren’t a racist, but you are in very racist company.

[Minardil]

I think Republicans view Racism these days in the same way that Dick Cheney viewed torture. Cheney claimed that Water Boarding wasn’t “torture”, and his argument is basically that “WE don’t torture people, so nothing we do is torture”. They seem to think the same logic applies to racism, that THEY aren’t Racists, so nothing they say or do could ever be considered racist, no matter how frakking racist it might be. So they say and do all this incredibly racist stuff, and they try to pass it off as if they were just rejecting “political correctness”. Sorry, but if you say a paraplegic person is a “cripple” or a little person is a “midget”, THAT’s being “politically incorrect”. If you say that all Mexicans are rapists and criminals and if you support the extermination of Muslims by nuclear attack, then you’re a racist. AND a genocidal maniac.

[Minardil]

Also, if you're Ted Nugent, and you refer to the President as a "chimp ass punk" who should be hung, you might be a little racist.

[hamlet]

There's little doubt that a lot of prominent Republicans (and RINO's really) and a significant portion of the "conservative" population are racist. Frankly, there's little doubt that just about every person on the planet is racist, but that's a different topic.

Here's the thing, though, you've spent a lot of bandwidth on this forum arguing against folks, myself included, by insinuating racism on the part of the poster and then metaphorically walking off patting yourself on the back. That's what would politely be referred to as a "jerkass move."

I consider myself a conservative, or at least a fairly conservative moderate at this point in my life, and I tend to think that my opinion of the general poorness of some of Mr. Obama's policies and actions are not, actually, based on the color of his skin. Or warmongering hawker. Or blinding, gleeful ignorance.

So, maybe, just a little bit, as a group, we could back off this constant "RACISM!!!!!" chant? Just a little?

[Jnyusa]

Hi, Hamlet. And Everyone! Been working really long hours.

But the thing is you're now using it is a blanket means of ignoring any counter opinion no matter what. You can just chalk it up to racism and go on your merry way feeling superior. It's precisely the same as when you gripe about how Republicans label people as unpatriotic and ignore the substance of the argument.

I never hear substantive arguments. That's the problem. If the arguments are blanket b.s. then blanket ignoring or debunking them is the only option.

But I also feel the same way when I hear the arguments of the left; that they are non-substantive and full of hidden agendae.

The cultural rift is really pretty deep, I think, and it's not a rift between Dems and Reps. It's rift between people who want solutions and are competent to devise them and people who have acquiesced to permanent victimhood and the rage that goes with it. People who are left-leaning succumb to snideness and mockery; people who are right-leaning succumb to violent and racist speech.

I give so much thought to this and don't succeed to wrap my head around it. I can really sympathize with Minardil and what he faces with his family because I face the same thing with my biological family. There are four topics of conversation: guns, dogs, trucks, and black people. Love of violence and hatred of black people feel justified to them and therefore neither aggressive nor racist. It all has cause in their minds, you see, so it's not prejudicial. But somehow we have to find the road in with accurate information, feasible options, to help get rid of their powerlessness instead of mocking it.

[Storyteller]

Hi, Hamlet. And Everyone! Been working really long hours.

But the thing is you're now using it is a blanket means of ignoring any counter opinion no matter what. You can just chalk it up to racism and go on your merry way feeling superior. It's precisely the same as when you gripe about how Republicans label people as unpatriotic and ignore the substance of the argument.

I never hear substantive arguments. That's the problem. If the arguments are blanket b.s. then blanket ignoring or debunking them is the only option.

But I also feel the same way when I hear the arguments of the left; that they are non-substantive and full of hidden agendae.

The cultural rift is really pretty deep, I think, and it's not a rift between Dems and Reps. It's rift between people who want solutions and are competent to devise them and people who have acquiesced to permanent victimhood and the rage that goes with it. People who are left-leaning succumb to snideness and mockery; people who are right-leaning succumb to violent and racist speech.

I give so much thought to this and don't succeed to wrap my head around it. I can really sympathize with Minardil and what he faces with his family because I face the same thing with my biological family. There are four topics of conversation: guns, dogs, trucks, and black people. Love of violence and hatred of black people feel justified to them and therefore neither aggressive nor racist. It all has cause in their minds, you see, so it's not prejudicial. But somehow we have to find the road in with accurate information, feasible options, to help get rid of their powerlessness instead of mocking it.

You cannot persuade someone if you do not respect them and do not try to understand them. If you can't talk about them without puffing up and asserting your superiority, if you talk down to them, if you treat them as inferior beings to be saved by the enlightened you, they will see right through it. Especially if the real goal of "getting rid of their powerlessness" is to disempower them at the voting booth.

[hamlet]

Hi, Hamlet. And Everyone! Been working really long hours.

But the thing is you're now using it is a blanket means of ignoring any counter opinion no matter what. You can just chalk it up to racism and go on your merry way feeling superior. It's precisely the same as when you gripe about how Republicans label people as unpatriotic and ignore the substance of the argument.

I never hear substantive arguments. That's the problem. If the arguments are blanket b.s. then blanket ignoring or debunking them is the only option.

But I also feel the same way when I hear the arguments of the left; that they are non-substantive and full of hidden agendae.

The cultural rift is really pretty deep, I think, and it's not a rift between Dems and Reps. It's rift between people who want solutions and are competent to devise them and people who have acquiesced to permanent victimhood and the rage that goes with it. People who are left-leaning succumb to snideness and mockery; people who are right-leaning succumb to violent and racist speech.

I give so much thought to this and don't succeed to wrap my head around it. I can really sympathize with Minardil and what he faces with his family because I face the same thing with my biological family. There are four topics of conversation: guns, dogs, trucks, and black people. Love of violence and hatred of black people feel justified to them and therefore neither aggressive nor racist. It all has cause in their minds, you see, so it's not prejudicial. But somehow we have to find the road in with accurate information, feasible options, to help get rid of their powerlessness instead of mocking it.

You cannot persuade someone if you do not respect them and do not try to understand them. If you can't talk about them without puffing up and asserting your superiority, if you talk down to them, if you treat them as inferior beings to be saved by the enlightened you, they will see right through it. Especially if the real goal of "getting rid of their powerlessness" is to disempower them at the voting booth.

QFT

A big issue isn't even necessarily a lack of understanding, it's coming at the discussion from the viewpoint a priori that the people to whom you are speaking are not just potentially incorrect or of differing opinion, but blithering racist idiots that you cannot fathom. You treat anybody on a different side of the argument as if they were cartoonishly villainous. You don't give anybody you're talking to the grounds to actually state their own opinion because, from your perspective, their opinion is superfluous. You make arguments against things that the person never said. You level personal insults (yes, you do) with a smug satisfaction that it's sickening.

You aren't discussing, you're, at best, badgering. It's irritating. If Donald Trump were to post here, feel free to rip into him based on what he said, but please don't rip into me for what others have said, what Trump has said, or what you imagine I've said or would say. It's largely the reason there's about, what?, three people left in this forum?

[Jnyusa]

People who have better information have an obligation to disseminate it as best they can, imo. The alternative is to let those who are mired in quicksand drown in it.

Some information IS better than other information. Some information has been critically tested, is verifiable without reference to the tooth fairy, and has positive results that are demonstrable and desirable to most people. You can reject that information if that is your preference, but you should at least be given that choice. You should at least be allowed to know what the alternatives are. That's the difference between a substantive conversation and b.s.

[hamlet]

And, yes, still missing the point. It's not the content, it's the insult. Labeling opposing viewpoints as nonsense.

Not to mention the profound ignorance and hubris involved in the assumption that your information is superior and that the unwashed idiot masses will benefit from your condescension and prophet like wit.

[Jnyusa]

Labeling opposing viewpoints as nonsense

Hamlet, I'm not going to pretend that Bill O'Reilly makes sense just to appease someone else's sense of self-worth. How could lying about an evaluation like that possibly help anyone?

It is frustration that makes the left contemptuous, just as it is frustration that makes the right violent. Both those responses fall on the unimaginative end of their respective political spectra. Their subtext is: I've given up (on you). If we want to re-establish communication, never mind respect, we have to do better than that. We have to commit some effort to finding the right questions to ask.