Fúck off Obama, you race-baiting, Islamist apologising, war-mongering cúnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I do find it quite extraordinary that the bien-pensant types all agree that Trump's election speaks of a horribly divided USA in which disunity, mutual resentment, racial division and political polarisation are at a particular high, etc, etc, but no-one ever follows through and suggests that maybe some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the guy who was running the place for the 8 years.

So you agree the place is a mess, but the bloke who was in charge while it became a mess gets a free pass? It's bizarre.

---

I think his victory speaks of an economic division, particularly geographically, that has grown hugely in the last decade, for obvious reasons. He exploited this by discussing the types of solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch because it involves tariffs, bashing climate change etc etc...... those issues helped him hugely and were a significant part of the victory.

The populist stuff (Mexicans, the wall etc) is politically divisive but I doubt it involved anybody actually changing their mind. He gave a voice to the 'silent majority' and the rest reacted the way they always do, with unabashed fury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

---

Your are such a ****ing idiot it's hard to know where to start

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well of course Obama's election was fuelled by racism, but in a slightly different way. Basically, as you say, his only USP was being black. This meant that nearly all black people and vast numbers of white people who wanted to show they weren't racist voted for him not because of his perceived ability, but because of his skin colour. Equally, his race meant he was horribly over-hyped to the point where it was assumed he would fart thunder and shít lightning. When he singly failed so to do, it was inevitable that disillusionment set in.

Essentially, the rule is that if you're going to play on your race to get into the White House, don't then be surprised that race is a political issue.

---

I think we drastically underestimate the extent to which race is always going to be an issue in US politics. As a social issue it is off the charts in terms of our own issues.

It is a little unfair to say he had nothing but race on his side. National politics is performance and he was more than capable of that, particularly when you look at who he ran against.

Trump v Obama would have been a great campaign.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

What????

Seriously, what the **** are you going on about? Who says something that stupid and why would you repeat it?

---

Hillary Clinton said it, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Pardon me?

---

Its like trying to explain what a three bedroom semi-detached chicken wing would look like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Hillary Clinton said it, I think.

---

Yes, well...... women!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I think his victory speaks of an economic division, particularly geographically, that has grown hugely in the last decade, for obvious reasons. He exploited this by discussing the types of solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch because it involves tariffs, bashing climate change etc etc...... those issues helped him hugely and were a significant part of the victory.

The populist stuff (Mexicans, the wall etc) is politically divisive but I doubt it involved anybody actually changing their mind. He gave a voice to the 'silent majority' and the rest reacted the way they always do, with unabashed fury.

---

There you are then. It's telling, isn't it, that "solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch" seem to be obvious common sense to everybody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I think we drastically underestimate the extent to which race is always going to be an issue in US politics. As a social issue it is off the charts in terms of our own issues.

It is a little unfair to say he had nothing but race on his side. National politics is performance and he was more than capable of that, particularly when you look at who he ran against.

Trump v Obama would have been a great campaign.....

---

Oh, I do appreciate that. You can't run a country that for its first 190-odd years enslaves, disenfranchises and legally discriminates against a large proportion of its citizens on the basis of their race without it being an absolutely epic political fault line.

Our racial (N.B. not religious) situation is vastly better and we have the legacy of having run the biggest empire the world's ever seen, ffs!

However, the mistake lies in thinking that a weight of historical wrongs is enough to convince white people whose lives are shítty now to just put up with it because black folks have had it worse. People just don't work like that and calling them 'racist' because they vote for a guy who says he's going to make it better is a remarkably silly response.

I'm not saying he had nothing but race on his side. I said it was his sole USP. Think about it: would a white senator with Obama's experience, charm, speaking ability, etc have got anywhere near the media traction he did? Of course not. He had the race card and he played it rather skilfully. I don't blame him, I just don't think you can do that and then complain about race being an issue.

As a side note, of course, what's pretty funny is that an awful lot of black Americans don't actually see Obama as properly black. Rich, half-white, born in Hawaii (supposedly ;-) ) and with an African father rather than being the descendant of slaves. They would argue that he never really lived the black experience. That's how fücked up questions of race are in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

There you are then. It's telling, isn't it, that "solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch" seem to be obvious common sense to everybody else.

---

Yes. In the heat of a 'common sense' election campaign they are great ideas. In the real world they are more complicated which is why he hasn't actually done any of them. He made promises he couldn't keep but at least he was too ignorant to know he couldn't keep them. Its an honesty of sorts.

THe others know they

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Oh, I do appreciate that. You can't run a country that for its first 190-odd years enslaves, disenfranchises and legally discriminates against a large proportion of its citizens on the basis of their race without it being an absolutely epic political fault line.

Our racial (N.B. not religious) situation is vastly better and we have the legacy of having run the biggest empire the world's ever seen, ffs!

However, the mistake lies in thinking that a weight of historical wrongs is enough to convince white people whose lives are shítty now to just put up with it because black folks have had it worse. People just don't work like that and calling them 'racist' because they vote for a guy who says he's going to make it better is a remarkably silly response.

I'm not saying he had nothing but race on his side. I said it was his sole USP. Think about it: would a white senator with Obama's experience, charm, speaking ability, etc have got anywhere near the media traction he did? Of course not. He had the race card and he played it rather skilfully. I don't blame him, I just don't think you can do that and then complain about race being an issue.

As a side note, of course, what's pretty funny is that an awful lot of black Americans don't actually see Obama as properly black. Rich, half-white, born in Hawaii (supposedly ;-) ) and with an African father rather than being the descendant of slaves. They would argue that he never really lived the black experience. That's how fücked up questions of race are in the US.

---

I think the point is that race is always an issue. Without question there were millions of americans who were terrified of having a black guy in the White House. For the first black President, race is always going to be the issue that overshadows everything else.

The colour of his skin divides the country. Trump's campaign was incredibly divisive but there is an odd quality here isn't there- isn't all partisan politics divisive? Isn't that the entire point of it?