Political & Elections

busdriver11 · Guru

Trump vs Obama

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: Yes, and suggesting that Trump is racist simply because he (a white person) refers to a constitutional requirement, is it self racist. There is nothing racist about questioning Obama's place of birth. It may be a silly argument, but it is not racist./Quote

Of course Donald Trump isn't racist. As he said himself, he's always had a good relationship with "the Blacks"... wink He's just skilled, like any GOP hitman/hitwoman at exploting the racial resentments and xenophobia extent in our current socio-political climate. More skilled, actually.

And razor, you're absolutely right. Race has nothing to do with the whole birther movement. Questioning Obama's legitimacy as an American citizen (when there has been ample proof that he was indeed born in this country from the very beginning) has nothing to do with the "he's not one of us", "will we now have to call it "The Black House?", "Muslim Manchurian Candidate/terrorist sleeper", "You just wait: He'll bring all his relatives from Africa and let them sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom", "His whole Cabinet will be Black", "Healthcare reform is all about black reparations", "In 'Obama's America', white kids get beaten up by the black kids on the bus", "where are his transcripts (because he can't possibly have deserved to get into Harvard, been Summa Cum Laude, or been worthy of heading the Law Revew---Blacks simply aren't that smart)?", "we got to take our country back", postcard of The White House lawn full of watermelons, racist, xenophobic bull-sh-yte. Absolutely nothing. doh

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 1st of May 2011 07:49:41 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

All what totems of racial persecution, Woodwork? As far as liberal blacks were concerned, Clarence Thomas was a black racist, unashamedly going against his own people (a twisted and all-too familiar form of self-hatred most pathetic), a man who certainly didn't deserve any defense from those whom he would work to harm. Would you protect from the police an arsonist hell bent on burning down your house? In the view of many blacks, he would have been the sort of house slave that, upon hearing rumors that certain field slaves were planning escape, would have run to 'Masa' and warned him against the loss of his property. That's the feeling Thomas engenders in a lot of black people, whether most whites understand it or not. Many white liberals also saw his racial ideologies to be rather abhorent, so they were engaged in something of a crusade as well---not because of racism against blacks, but because of the cynical way conservatives were using him to advance their agenda (again, because of the perceived use of affirmative action to thwart affirmative action). And like many conservatives who use racial fears and resentments to weaken Obama for simple political expediency, many liberals were willing to employ any dirty means necessary, as long as it might result in keeping Thomas from being appointed to the SCOTUS. I'm not claiming the whole thing wasn't extremely tawdry, cynical and reeking of the putrifaction still wafting from the cess pool of America's racial legacy. It was and it did. I'm just trying to lend some insight into what I perceive to have been going on.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Sunday 1st of May 2011 07:47:19 PM

Razorsharp · Guru

blankmind wrote:
nba, the problem with your argument is that your definition of racist appears to be "anyone who is not loving Obama as President".

It's as if you believe that all non-minorities are unthinking subhumans who take orders from a hivemind.

Yes, and suggesting that Trump is racist simply because he (a white person) refers to a constitutional requirement, is it self racist. There is nothing racist about questioning Obama's place of birth. It may be a silly argument, but it is not racist.

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Sunday 1st of May 2011 04:26:36 PM

blankmind · Senior Member

nba, the problem with your argument is that your definition of racist appears to be "anyone who is not loving Obama as President".

It's as if you believe that all non-minorities are unthinking subhumans who take orders from a hivemind.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Again, how to explain the ruthless attack made on Clarence Thomas --not by amorphous "Republicans" meaning somebody somehow identified with the Republican party-- but rather a Senate Committee of Democrats and the MSM using all the totems of racial persecution as nauseum? By Liberals.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:
"But in Obama's case, the destructive power of America's long entrenched racism and xenophobia are weapons too powerful for some of his opponents to resist."

Maybe there are people capitalizing upon others racist tendencies, as an opportunistic way of putting down their opponent. But what do you think when the Republicans have a black, hispanic or female candidate for higher office....and those exact people whom you consider as racist/sexist, are their biggest supporters? How to explain that one?

Racists often believe in making exceptions for individuals, especially if that individual is a useful token and shield against the R-card.

Minorities really get tired when racists think that a charge of racism is automatically neutered when just a SINGLE dissenting minority who disagrees with the charge of racism is found.

It's as if racists believe that all minorities are unthinking subhumans who take orders from a hivemind.

Hey, there was a white preacher at Rev. Wright's church! Guess you the Rev can say whatever he wants cuz he's got a few white people in his church!

longprime · Guru

The Donald,

does sound regal. evileye

{has a daugher that's near DS age} bleh

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 29th of April 2011 11:24:12 PM

DonnaL · Senior Member

I'd love to see Trump's academic transcripts, SAT scores, and all the rest. (Or see him graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.) As the saying goes, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

What a disgusting pig (in every sense of that word imaginable). And delusional, if you read the excerpts from his depostion testimony about his so-called billions.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 29th of April 2011 10:59:09 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 29th of April 2011 11:03:37 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: I think you make a lot of good points, Hayden, but where would you place the matter of simply disagreeing with the political philosophy, record, plans of someone who is black? If Mr. Obama were white I would STILL disagree with him just as much. I think he's much less elitist than Mr. Kerry and certainly not a nutcase like Al Gore. So on a personal level, I think he's better than the last two white alternatives, but I still disagree with almost everything he has done or has said he will do./Quote

Zooser, the problem doesn't come in disagreeing with Obama's political philosopy, record, plans, etc. That's to be expected across party lines. Certainly, there are conservatives who, like yourself are not racist, nor inclined to believe his race has anything at all to do with what they find objectionable about his Presidency. I respect that position entirely. There are, of course, liberals who believe that every conservative's criticism of Obama secretly centers around his race, but I don't think that would be nearly so prevalent if the actions of some conservatives didn't make it so abundantly clear that Obama's race is indeed at the top of their list of objections.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: Where these subtle racists feel like they have the control, they're perfectly okay with blacks. So a black person in a high position on your side, is someone your side controls. But put the real power in the hands of the black, and they feel threatened. I've met this type of folks, and many of them don't have the slightest clue they are racist./Quote

I agee wholeheartedly. In fact, I think that entire post was extremely good.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote:One recent mame comes to mind: Clarence Thomas.

Then and now, I do not recall the civil-rights or progressive commubity coming to his defense. That was, to my mind, much more brutal...pubic hairs, porn, white women, sexual harrassment, under-qualified, no the best man for the job, uppity, and all this in publig hears in the Senate Halls...not WWW.internet bogs. Now that's the real deal. The big guns: Senators, TV anchors, the NYT, WaPo, Biden, Kennedy et al. No one was asking them to denounce these crazies...they were the crazies needed denouncing./Quote

Woodwork, I don't believe Clarence Thomas was the victim of some kind of race-based hit job. He tried to make it out to be such, the supposed "high tech lynching", but I never saw it. If Anita Hill had been a white woman, it might validly have been called such, because then it certainly would have served to stir up the not so atavistic white fear of the savage black man's craving for white women. Hill's allegations had nothing to do with race, but rather pure sexism in its rawest and rauchiest form. If a white female colleague of a white SCOTUS nominee came forward and publicly accused him of the type of harassment Hill leveled against Thomas, many of his supporters would have called it a political character assassination of the worse sort, but no one would think it racially motivated. Obviously, those who believed Hill and those who did not generally fell along party lines. To this day, I personally still don't know who was telling the truth. My biggest problem concerning Hill's veracity was the fact that she took a position with him after he'd moved to Washington, knowing his supposed propensity to be a disgusting, sexist pig... But, delving back into that pit might run the point of this discussion off the rails, that point being whether or not Hill's testimony was a coordinated effort to smear Clarence Thomas based on his race. Again, I don't think it was. Clarence Thomas' wife is as white as the driven snow, but few have had anything to say concerning that. Liberals haven't because, well, that would be decidedly unliberal. Conservatives haven't because he's "their boy", as offensive as that sounds. Many blacks believe he carries water for them, to the detriment of other blacks, something most blacks find unspeakably repugnant. I suppose in so far as many blacks perceive Thomas to be a quintessential Uncle Tom, his race is indeed an issue. But, as far as the rest of the country was concerned, I don't see the Hill controversy as ever being about his race. I do remember allegations that he was under-qualified, but I don't recall anything about "white women" (during the hearings, was that brought up?), and I certainly don't recall liberals referring to him as uppity....

Now that I think back on it, I concede that race was definitely front and center in the political slug fest that was the Thomas confirmation hearings. It was front and center because he was a black arch conservative who had benefitted from the hand-up afforded by Affirmative action, but who was now doing everything in his power to close that door for other blacks. And his very nomination was the conservative party's attempt to kill affirmative action with the help of their very own affirmative action candidate. Oh the irony!

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Friday 29th of April 2011 07:36:36 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

That was an interesting explanation, hayden. Very open minded and unbiased (in my opinion) and could easily apply to either political party. I never quite thought of it that way.

Sure, I have seen plenty of racism. I spend alot of time in Tennessee. I see a huge amount of racism, white against blacks, and blacks against whites. Memphis is one of the most dysfuntional towns I've been in. Knowing this, I am particularly careful to be friendly and respectful to the blacks that I work with or deal with, spending time there. I want them to know that I am not one of "those" sort of white people, and generally everyone responds well to that. I see very little racism on either side where I work, though in that ultra racist community....thankfully.

longprime · Guru

R's must be in agast to having The Donald as a front runner.

All that work in developing new themes and people- poof. Obama is found to be eligible for President (W hopefully did his job in vetting Obama) and The Donald forced the issue and spent no money doing so.

So funny.

hayden · Senior Member

Where would I put disagreeing with someone who is black? I would put it in the realm of political disagreement, and not in the racism bucket.

Black people have the same right to be wrong as whites do. :)

zoosermom · Senior Member

I think you make a lot of good points, Hayden, but where would you place the matter of simply disagreeing with the political philosophy, record, plans of someone who is black? If Mr. Obama were white I would STILL disagree with him just as much. I think he's much less elitist than Mr. Kerry and certainly not a nutcase like Al Gore. So on a personal level, I think he's better than the last two white alternatives, but I still disagree with almost everything he has done or has said he will do.

hayden · Senior Member

busdriver, even at the worst depths of racism, racism has never been about the existence of blacks, or even being alongside blacks. The white families in the deep south back in the '40's and '50's who used black nannies to care for their children, cook their food, etc., never had a problem with black people sitting next to them in their homes, or driving their cars.

True racism is about station and power. Remember To Kill a Mockingbird? It was okay for the black man to be around whites, even like being around white people, but he couldn't feel sorry for them. Why? Because he didn't have the right to see himself as their equal, or that ultimate crime of looking down on any white woman no matter how pathetic. Anyone who has ever watched that movie, and not immediately, in your gut, understood that collective gasp in the courtroom when the black defendent says he felt sorry for Miss Mayella, does not understand the true roots of racism.

The vast majority of us have moved way beyond that now. But as I said previously, we have a more subtle racism, subtle to the point where a lot of people don't see it in themselves or in others. Where these subtle racists feel like they have the control, they're perfectly okay with blacks. So a black person in a high position on your side, is someone your side controls. But put the real power in the hands of the black, and they feel threatened. I've met this type of folks, and many of them don't have the slightest clue they are racist. Most of them are good people, who would feed a poor black, and donate clothes to their kids. But put the power in the hands of the black person, and all of a sudden it's a different kettle of fish. Michael Steele is a good example - I think most people saw that he never truly had his own power base, he was just selected by the people who had the real power base.

You may not see this (and if you have not, you are truly lucky), especially if you have not spent a lot of time around people who are racists. But most of us who have, recognize it. I think the great thing about this country is that we have moved from overt racism to this more subtle, hidden form of racism. In another generation or so, I think all forms of racism will be disappearing even more. We're getting better and better at this equality thing. It takes practice.

busdriver11 · Guru

"But in Obama's case, the destructive power of America's long entrenched racism and xenophobia are weapons too powerful for some of his opponents to resist."

Maybe there are people capitalizing upon others racist tendencies, as an opportunistic way of putting down their opponent. But what do you think when the Republicans have a black, hispanic or female candidate for higher office....and those exact people whom you consider as racist/sexist, are their biggest supporters? How to explain that one?

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: As to your other one, I was attempting to make the point that one doesn't need to look to race as a reason for oppostition and that character assassination mentioned just below (above?) -- the political philosophy and goals of public figures has been more than enough for as long as I can remember./Quote

It should be enough. But in Obama's case, the destructive power of America's long entrenched racism and xenophobia are weapons too powerful for some of his opponents to resist. No other President has been vulnerable in this way, and they know there's no way for him to escape the the fact of his own skin.

catahoula · Guru

As to your other one, I was attempting to make the point that one doesn't need to look to race as a reason for oppostition and that character assassination mentioned just below (above?) -- the political philosophy and goals of public figures has been more than enough for as long as I can remember.

Clarence Thomas is a good current day example of political savaging and I don't recall any notable figures of the left coming to his defense with the argument that "its really all about his race".

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 28th of April 2011 03:23:44 PM

catahoula · Guru

Cat, the birther thing has always been a liability,

We'll have to just disagree then, poet, because the response to it, the framing of the issue as one that only bottom feeding racists would be interested in (complete with catchy nickname for same) always struck me as a political decision to "let the fools make fools of themselves and we'll marginalize both them and the party they belong to, hah, hah, hah". And letting it go on as long as he did, while it was being used by his supporters to tag darn near anyone who even wondered why he wouldn't put it to rest with that same "birther" tag...

Pat Buchanan: I believe he was born in the US, in Hawaii, and in that same week that the newspaper said he was, but I have a real question. I’m puzzled why the president doesn’t call on the state of Hawaii and say “look – send the birth certificate to me…

Chris Matthews: “so you’re a birther…”

Buchannan: … release a copy to the press…

Matthews: “so you’re a birther…”

... makes me think it was a calculated decision to show what kind of pushback was going to come at anyone who indulged in any of that cherished American institution -- mockery and character assassination, be it about his middle name, his college transcripts, etc.

pima · Guru

Bullet and I were talking about this last night, and we both agreed Trump played them. Whatever you may feel about the birth certificate or Obama is really the small picture when you talk about politics.

Politics is like Football, you never want to be on the defense, and that is where Obama went yesterday. He allowed Trump to take offense. Trump than pushed the ball further to discuss OPEC, whereas Obama really didn't.

I will say Trump did fumble, the college records should not be an issue. The only reason I can see him go after the records is to dismiss the image of him being an intellectual to the level that the media has created.

I also think he did it as a slam to the dems who always condemned Bush for being stupid, even though he went to Ivies. Bush has been out of office for over 2 yrs., and people like Behar still harp on him.

Off topic, but last night I was ticked at one show. The Ed Shultz show on MSNBC, he had the R's logo and instead of it saying Republican party, it said Birther's party. This man is a pundit, and I get that, but I don't get how MSNBC can say with a straight face they report fairly for both sides. Really? That would be like Fox putting next to the D's logo, the freebie party!

Woodwork · Senior Member

One recent mame comes to mind: Clarence Thomas.

Then and now, I do not recall the civil-rights or progressive commubity coming to his defense. That was, to my mind, much more brutal...pubic hairs, porn, white women, sexual harrassment, under-qualified, no the best man for the job, uppity, and all this in publig hears in the Senate Halls...not WWW.internet bogs. Now that's the real deal. The big guns: Senators, TV anchors, the NYT, WaPo, Biden, Kennedy et al. No one was asking them to denounce these crazies...they were the crazies needed denouncing.

It's a rough and dirty game.

As I recall, this "birth issue" first surfaced in the primaries. Probably Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's their kind of game, for sure. And it does remind me of the ceaseless calls for Bush's National Guard records...of course, in this instance, it was not the liberal equivalent of The Donald, but Dan Rather and CBS News, amongst many other very curious journalists diligently practicing their craft. I thought it was silly and meaningless then, same as the birther issue now, but I just see it as par for the course. It requires no one to act out of character. It's what they do.

busdriver11 · Guru

I forgot to add, do you think attacks about country of birth would be happening if the president was black, and a conservative? Do you think the same people would be attacking that conservative president about any little imagined rumor because they are racist and therefore he shouldn't be president?

No way. They would be supporting him and loving him. The attacks, rumors, lies and innuendos would all be coming from the Democrats. It would be ugly and vicious. And it is all politics.

busdriver11 · Guru

The reason to limit it to modern day presidents is because with the constant news coverage and the internet, being in the public eye takes on an entirely different level of scrutiny. People can keep rumors going, people believe things as fact when they are in writing. I wouldn't want to be in any public position today. The internet keeps constant attacks alive.

I don't think there are many people who are actually birthers, Poetsheart. When you look at the polls and they say a large number of people aren't sure the president was born in the US, I think it merely reflects people who don't like him and want to say something negative. I don't think it is as complex and full of racial hatred as you think it is. Because alot of whites did vote for him, and if they have changed their mind about him it is not because they just realized he is a black man and is not "supposed" to be the president.

Maybe I am naive to think this will put this ridiculous issue to rest. I guess time will tell, if this dies down or comes more to life (by someone other than the crazies). I have always thought that there are enough real issues to be concerned about with the president (ie deficit spending) than concentrating on rumors and trivia. But it does seem that if you are going to be a public figure, you need to release everything. When you hold something back, people fill in the blanks. Leaving those who weren't even suspicious in the first place to wonder why you didn't just do it already. Of course there will always be attacks, rumors and people concentrating on lies and trivia about President Obama. But you think this is new? He's the only one this is ever/will ever happen to? Yes, having a polygamist Kenyan father is a new thing for a president, and yeah that's going to draw alot of scrutiny. But it is a cop out to leap to the assumption that any questions and attacks are because of racism. There may be some, but the vast majority of attacks are happening because of politics and nothing else.

hayden · Senior Member

"How many modern day presidents had a parent who was not a US citizen?"

If this were a Constitutional issue, why restrict the question to modern day presidents? I have never researched the issue, but for all presidents, Andrew Jackson leaps to mind. Both his parents, and most of his siblings, were born outside the US, and I don't think either of them ever became citizens. Maybe his mother, but certainly not his father. I am not aware that anyone questioned his citizenship. There also was a president, don't remember which, who did have is citizenship questioned. But the issue was whether he was born in the US or not. There in fact was a real question, since he may possibly have been born in Canada, but our geographical technology wasn't as strong back then.

What poetsheart is saying is pretty largely true. There are people who are not racist who question(ed) Obama's birth. But it's a very convenient home for people who are racists. Part of the problem, I think, is that people don't recognize racism the way we used to. In the 50's, it was easy to say racists support segregation, and non-racists support integration. These days, the racism is more subtle, and I know some racists who have no idea they are racist. E.g., people who say, in a conversation about why a particular worker is always going to the bathroom, "well, you know how those people are - anyway to get out of work". Then another chimes in "yeah - problably in there taking drugs". I said to them "you don't think the fact that she's 9 months pregnant has something to do with going to the bathroom a lot?". These people don't think they're racist, and they truly would hire someone who's black, and they wouldn't fire someone just because they're black. But at heart, in their underlying views of life, they are racist, without ever seeing it. I'm very optimistic though, because these folks are so much better than their parents' generation, and their kids will be hopefully even better.

In terms of being uppity, it's the same sort of subtle thing. I think we've all seen it in our work lives - a "normal" person walks in to the workplcace, says hello in a friendly way, and we say hello back without giving it a moment's thought. Then someone else walks in, but this is the son of senator, or the daughter of your corporation's CEO. He or she says hello in a friendly way, and we spend the next hour talking about what a nice person he was, how down to earth, etc. etc. With some people, it's the same with blacks. And they never see it, or realize they're doing it.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: But in reality, there are some differences in this president that bring notice to issues that most black men would not have to deal with. He should have answered to this specific issue a long time ago, and I suspect most of his supporters know this, though they don't want to admit it. You can give all the defenses and reasons in the world, but he let this grow, and he should have dealt with it.

His father was a KENYAN. How many modern day presidents had a parent who was not a US citizen? How many presidents had a father and step father who were Muslim? How many spent much of their childhood in a non-Western country such as Indonesia? When you have a middle name like Hussein, you need to clear up ANY QUESTION about your citizenship immediately. I think it was an arrogant, stupid error on the Presidents part to let this continue. Now he may have met a goal in allowing people to act as fools over this matter, but I don't think this works out well for him either./quote

Oh please. If you think the release of the long form birth certificate is going to quash the birther issue, you are delusional. He did address these issues from the start. He released the only document that the State of Hawaii has declared to be the legitimate proof of citizenship for all legal purposes since the 1980's. This document suffices as proof of citizenship for top-secret government clearance, for passports, for military service and entrance into military academies, and for all state and federal benefits requiring proof of citizenship. But, in Obama's case, it wasn't enough. Why? Can you answer that question for me? Why wasn't it enough? If birthers don't believe the official state document issued for this purpose, why would they believe in the legitimacy of yet another document issued by the state? The answer is they would not and they do not! Even now, birthers are foaming at the mouth about the fact that the long form states that his father is "African" when it supposedly "should" say "Negro". they are hyer-ventilating about a supposed "smudge" on the form, over why a fifty year old document is in such "good condition", over why it says Barack Husein Obama II instead of Barack Husein Obama, Jr. All of this is somehow "proof" that this is not the "real" birth certificate. Heck, there are even some who insist it's not real because it's called "A Certificate of Live Birth" instead of a "Birth Certificate". Had this form been released in the beginning, along with the short form, the paranoid outrage would have remained the same. And I think you know that. So now that the only other document that can prove that he is indeed a citizen of these United States has been issued, what's he supposed to do next to satisfy the doubters? What?

And yes, his father was a Kenyan, and thereby do we come to the chewy caramel center of this issue. The fact is, an awful lot of people are offended that this son of a Kenyan and white trash slut who so disrespected herself as to open her legs for him is now President of the United States. In the White House, for God's sake! If Obama's mother had met Barack Senior while back packing through Kenya, and been pregnant while living there, maybe people might have legitimate questions about the place of his birth, and thereby, his citizenship. But, that is not the case. They met while he was a student here, and they married and lived as a couple here. There has always been ample proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the US, fulfiling the most stringent requirements for Presidential office, as outlined by the US Constitution. But somehow, the nationality of his father is cause for question of his eligibility? Really? How So? As far as all the other questions you've brought up? All noise. Maybe some people are bothered by all that is unique about Barack Obama, but where the rubber meets the road, they have no argument, because the proof that he is fully eligible to be President has always been there for all to see and recognize. The problem comes from the refusal to ACCEPT that such a man could become President of The United States. That simply wasn't supposed to happen. It flew in the face of all historical precedent, and every accepted historical definition of what it means to be American.

Quote: How many presidents had a father and step father who were Muslim? How many spent much of their childhood in a non-Western country such as Indonesia? When you have a middle name like Hussein, you need to clear up ANY QUESTION about your citizenship immediately. I think it was an arrogant, stupid error on the Presidents part to let this continue. Now he may have met a goal in allowing people to act as fools over this matter, but I don't think this works out well for him either./Quote

So, until people stop being fearful, racist, jingoist *******s, you have an obligation to prove yourself and prove yourself, and prove yourself worthy of the rights they take for granted? You must grovel before them and beg their acceptance? Got it.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:21:28 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:23:02 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:24:07 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:29:56 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:32:39 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Thursday 28th of April 2011 12:17:25 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Why have questions like these been so tenaciously leveled against this candidate/President? What other man in his position has ever been questioned as to his citizenship?"

So I know that the rush to these answers are going to be, "They're against him because a black man, that's the reason!" As if President Bush wasn't questioned about so many trivial and unfair issues, even his legitimacy as far as getting enough votes, after the Florida recount was done in many different ways, it never stopped.

But in reality, there are some differences in this president that bring notice to issues that most black men would not have to deal with. He should have answered to this specific issue a long time ago, and I suspect most of his supporters know this, though they don't want to admit it. You can give all the defenses and reasons in the world, but he let this grow, and he should have dealt with it.

His father was a KENYAN. How many modern day presidents had a parent who was not a US citizen? How many presidents had a father and step father who were Muslim? How many spent much of their childhood in a non-Western country such as Indonesia? When you have a middle name like Hussein, you need to clear up ANY QUESTION about your citizenship immediately. I think it was an arrogant, stupid error on the Presidents part to let this continue. Now he may have met a goal in allowing people to act as fools over this matter, but I don't think this works out well for him either.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: The sad fact is that it isn't O's skin tone that makes him black enough to gather the race card support of the Whoopie Goldbergs and Tavis Smileys, it's his political leanings - if the man shared the beliefs of Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, for instance, they'd be cheerfully skewering him right along with every other notable liberal, white or black. All days, in every way, and in any available orifice./Quote

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point here. How is it even related to this discussion? Your first sentence, in particular, goes right over my head. What's it's point?

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: All the legal spin aside, he could have coughed up the birth certificate years ago, but didn't because it served a political purpose. Now that it no longer did, had turned into a liability instead, he changed his mind./Quote

Cat, the birther thing has always been a liability, that's why so many across the GOP spectrum have exploited it with such sly savvy. Obama was thinking he could outlast the birther noise, that he could, by refusing to address it, rise above it. But, he didn't fully ascertain the strength of the resentment and paranoia that underpins it. He doesn't want to be put in the position of having to chase down and explain/debunk every ****amaime accusation engendered by such resentments. But, even as the latest one has popped up like a weed to replace the one he just pulled, he might be forced to do just that. At which point, he'll be put into a true catch 22 position: If he's constantly answering these never-ending speculations and conspiracy theories, he'll be criticized for being preoccumpied with personal issues having nothing to do with our legitimate national issues and concerns. If he distances himself from them, refuses to address them the way he refused to give credence to birther paranoia, he'll be accused of manipulating each accusation to his own advantage (as if he was the one who brough the issues to the fore in the first place ... confuse ) This is why the "transcripts" demand has followed so closely on the heels of the birther demand. It's all about pounding the drum of the "he's not one of us" crowd, the "how dare this %$#^& think he's qualified to be President crowd. So, what comes after the transcripts noise?

The compelling question should be: Why have questions like these been so tenaciously leveled against this candidate/President? What other man in his position has ever been questioned as to his citizenship? What other Summa Cude Laude candidate/President's academic bonafides have ever been questioned? Was Bill Clinton's Rhodes Scholarship questioned? Did anyone even care to see his college transcripts? Answer these questions, and maybe we'll begin to arrivce at some truth in this country.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 08:47:51 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 08:49:03 PM

john doe · Guru

So what is Obama suppose to do - answer every nutjob's lunatic ravings??

catahoula · Guru

The sad fact is that it isn't O's skin tone that makes him black enough to gather the race card support of the Whoopie Goldbergs and Tavis Smileys, it's his political leanings - if the man shared the beliefs of Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, for instance, they'd be cheerfully skewering him right along with every other notable liberal, white or black. All days, in every way, and in any available orifice.]

All the legal spin aside, he could have coughed up the birth certificate years ago, but didn't because it served a political purpose. Now that it no longer did, had turned into a liability instead, he changed his mind.

So he's a cynical politician. What else is new?

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 06:52:08 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 06:56:35 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: The fact is this was not about his birth, and never was about his birth, will be proven as the birthers turn their attention to his grades, his father's citizenship, whether other countries declaring you a citizen can take away American's definition of citizenship, and all the other nonsense. I'm sure there will be people who blame Obama for that conversation also./Quote

Absolutely true. And now begins the next barrage of unreasonable demands for accountability. It's already started, with Trump's newest cynical salvo, and it appeals to the same racial resentments that kept the Birther paranoia thriving. Now that most Americans will (many, grudgingly) accept that he was indeed born in the USA, they now have to find another reason why this "interloper" doesn't deserve to be President---Heck, he didn't even deserve to go to college, certainly not an elite one. Who the hell does he think he is? Summa Cum Laude my ass! All due to Affirmative Action. We've been hoodwinked, I tell ya! furious

hayden · Senior Member

"Let me get this right, the state of Hawaii, where the President is a resident would not release it for 2 1/2 yrs that was requested by the RESIDENT who is the PRESIDENT because that is how long it took for the paperwork channels?"

It is against Hawaiian law to release this document. It is not "his birth certificate", it is the State's document of his birth. He had to get a dispensation of the law - not "paperwork" - to get it.

Why didn't he release it back in 2008? Because he did. He released the full legal birth certificate that others get. There was significant and never refuted evidence he was born in Hawaii, and never any evidence he was born anywhere else. But it wasn't as big an issue back then among main stream Republicans.

The reason he finally caved was because his birth was becoming the center of attention, and was threatening to overtake the national discussion, far more than it did in 2008. That was one of Trump's usual lies, by the way, - neither Clinton nor her campaign, nor the McCain campaign, ever asked for his birth records.

That this ever became a big deal is not Obama's fault, so blaming him for the conversation of crazies is a little disengenuous.

The fact is this was not about his birth, and never was about his birth, will be proven as the birthers turn their attention to his grades, his father's citizenship, whether other countries declaring you a citizen can take away American's definition of citizenship, and all the other nonsense. I'm sure there will be people who blame Obama for that conversation also.

longprime · Guru

Sam^

Obama does have to do anything.

It was up to the last administration to prove that Obama was not eligible to take of the Office of the President. I doubt that W wanted to disregard his duty to protect and preserve the Constitution. evileye His AG maybe, but not W. evileye

Go Donald. Maybe he can make my properties more valuable. Then again any RE owner wishes inflation. evileye

Can we imagine the Donald's Lovers coming out of the hotels. Some class acts. evileye

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Just saw this on facebook, and I think that if anyone getting a new passport has to jump through these hoops, then maybe so should ANYONE applying for the job to be in Congress, the US Senate and the President!

Can all of you list every address you have lived at your entire life? Every school you have attended, with addresses? Yikes.

http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/state-dept-wants-to-make-it-harder-to-get-a-passport/

http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ds5513-proposed.pdf

The good news is that not everyone will have to fill out this form. Just those that the Passport Office wants more information from. Kind of like...an audit. Or an American Community Census form (zoose and I both got these. They were fun! Not.)

I think President Obama should have released his BC a long time ago. Some people are crazy and some are racist, true - but I think that in the new era of transparency, it should have been a done deal in 2008.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: I suspect that he let this continue because it made his opponents appear crazy and racist, it was a way to distract from the valid critiques of his administration and policies, by classifying them as "birthers"./Quote

Well, many of them are crazy and racist---at least the ones who seriously believe Obama was born in Kenya. The ones who knew better (like Trump) knew that keeping this going like a smoldering fire served only to hamper Obama's efforts to address serious issues, because it de-legitimized his authority as President at every turn. I think Obama finally gave in to the pressure to release the long form because Donald Trump made it abundantly obvious that the issue was not going to lessen in intensity, that manipulative cynics like Trump had the power to turn the smolder into a flame. I think The President wanted to believe most people would eventually dismiss the birthers out-of-hand for the nut jobs they are. But, with recent attempts to make law a requirement that all future Presidential candidate "prove" they were born in the USA (as if Obama hadn't provided ample evidence to that effect), and Trump's disingenuous concerns that the American public had been hoodwinked, who was this controversy really benefitting? Three years after it first became an issue, 48% of Americans apparently still believed Obama might not have been, or was not born in The US (Along with fully 2/3rds of Republicans). I believe Obama finally threw in the towel and relented to lunacy (and racism) when it proved depressingly obvious that this issue was not going to go away. Question: If this was Obama's way of "distracting from the valid criticism of his administration (as if that has not been occurring with gusto), why oh why is it conservatives (mainstream as well as extremists) who've worked so tirelessly to keep the birther issue on the front burner?

Tom1944 · Senior Member

I was listening to talk radio today and now the talking points are it is about how and when he released the bc. See it is not really about the bc it is just a tool for the opponents of the president to attempt to weaken him. Yes both sides do it. We will move next to his college transcript but I also heard that his Easter Sunday pastor is in the cross hairs.

As Big G says both parties are the same they are not out to help most Americans, their policies are really no different so they need these issues to get elected.

pima · Guru

Long, I think you meant to say he shafted many of his wives!

longprime · Guru

gonna miss the Don.

He shafted many an investor.

pima · Guru

Well according to the news reports they have stated it was the fault of paperwork and Hawaii clearing it. I actually chuckled at that one.

Let me get this right, the state of Hawaii, where the President is a resident would not release it for 2 1/2 yrs that was requested by the RESIDENT who is the PRESIDENT because that is how long it took for the paperwork channels?

Are you kidding me?

Oh come on, please give me a different excuse, because if that is true I would hate to get a replacement driver's license from their DMV...I would probably be dead before they got to me the nobody.

OBTW I am not a birther either, but that excuse was inane. Again Trump scores one because at least at this time he had the clout to make Obama get off message and address an issue that he skirted.

Let's be real, it was Trump and the new polls that showed to his insiders this was still an issue which now he is running under 50% approval needs to be addressed. If he was at 70% he would not have released it. For an outsider he has become very proficient in playing the insider's game.

-- Edited by pima on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 12:10:56 PM

blankmind · Senior Member

I agree busdriver. I saw Obama on tv today talking about how the whole thing was amusing to him. Now I can understand the humor of something like this for the average person, but what is the benefit of letting this drag on for a President? Having a laugh at his constituents?

I don't subscribe to the birther conspiracy, but I really don't understand why he didn't just produce the damn thing in the beginning and stop the idiocy. It just makes him seem stubborn about something that shouldn't be a big deal.

-- Edited by blankmind on Wednesday 27th of April 2011 11:08:09 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

I keep waiting for the president to announce why he let this ridiculous birth certificate issue go on for so many years. If it was such a side show, it has been so for years. Why he didn't just take care of this 2 1/2 years ago before the election is beyond me. To pretend that it is only a sideshow now, because people aren't paying attention to the budget he put out suggests that he has been incredibly isolated from reality for years. I have yet to hear any adequate explanation of why he didn't take care of this a long time ago.

I suspect that he let this continue because it made his opponents appear crazy and racist, it was a way to distract from the valid critiques of his administration and policies, by classifying them as "birthers".

pima · Guru

I have to say there are some things that Trump says I 100% agree with.

For ex: OPEC

I agree with him. Just this week OPEC announced that they will be lessening the spiquot for oil output because there is a glut.

For yrs now Bullet and I both feel that we have allowed the Saudis to ride roughshod over us regarding oil.

I am with Trump. I would turn to them and say you know what, we're out of here. Our country is against protecting this area with our lives. I'll lose points for the price of gas rising, but when I say it saves one American life, it will be a draw.

I bet that would make them re-think things very quickly with all the unrest in the area. Plus, anyone ever associated with the military knows we pump tons of money into their economy just based on the amount of bases we have there. Their citizens live off of some of that money.

I am against him for now bringing up college records. I really don't care how he got into Columbia or Yale, or what his grades are. People grow and change. Trump admits he was pro-choice before he became pro-life, because he grew and changed. If he wants people to accept that for him, the same must be said for him accepting Obama. Life is more than books.

I laughed at one of the statement's Obama made today re: birth certificate. It is time for real issues and not side shows (paraphrasing). Only this past Sat on tv was the American President with Michael Douglas, and he says almost the exact same thing to his opposition. The scene where he says we have real problems and my love life isn't one of them.

I hope Obama does address the real problems, but to me it was pretty sad he came to the platform to announce his birth certificate release and not Petraeus or Panetta. He could have had the WH release it via the press secretary or CoS.

I think appointing the CIA director and SoD is news worthy of the President to come out, not the certificate. I would have also thought that today when Nato forces were killed by an Afghani on a military installation, this issue did not rise to the stature of a Presidential briefing.

All this said to me was the administration was following polls, not leading in times of real problems.

Trump won this one IMPO. He forced this administration to follow Trump's lead and get off topic, meanwhile Trump levied the next salvo by moving onto OPEC, something every American truly cares about and can relate to.