These People Make Me Sick

…………..on so many levels.

Take a gander at what some of our future leaders think;

“It would be so cool to have a woman/Albino/midget/paraplegic/illegal alien/double amputee/Native American/feminist/vegan/ferret lover/toothless Thai transgender hooker for president, yea us because we are so diverse.”

One of the biggest complaints I have with Foxnews is that they have turned into the Hillary Network, at least the opinion shows have. Hard news through out the day is usually fine but after 5, they are unwatchable. We get Rove making himself relevant by throwing out stories about her break down and suspect competence (he’s one to talk), too many stories to account about Chelsea getting knocked up and her political future, and Bill hitting the cocktail circuit (and the cocktails, he looks not long for this earth) doing damage control both for his wife’s career and for the chubby intern making more news.

I’m not surprised that these “voters” draw a blank when trying to list a Hillary accomplishment, the world is worse off. Sure, you could plant that in Obama’s front yard (Kerry, is no better), but here’s the deal, foreign policy is not complicated, the goal is to have your friends trust you, your enemies fear you, and the rest of the world to respect you. We have none of that now.

I have never seen a much more anticipated coronation, like ever, so I guess it is inevitable that every waking moment of news reporting will have the Hillary stench attached. It’s going to a long next couple a years.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Diversity merely for its own sake is not only meaningless, but generally counterproductive.

    Once you’ve set a goal for “diversity” without understanding what the end goal actually is, you might as well just get a group of clones together and randomly assign them identities to fulfill the quota.

    Thumb up 5

  2. AlexInCT

    Diversity merely for its own sake is not only meaningless, but generally counterproductive.

    Funny how these diversity types all don’t have any tolerance for any diversity of thought….

    Thumb up 15

  3. Iconoclast

    Western civilization is doomed.

    I was convinced of this as soon as it became apparent that Obama would have a second term. And it seems rather clear, to me at least, that Hillary will be our next President. You see, qualification (or utter lack thereof) no longer matters. No, what’s important today is utter superficiality. Obama was elected because he was black. Period. End of discussion. And Hillary will be elected because she is a woman. Period. End of discussion. The fact that neither one of these clowns is fit to hold the office is utterly irrelevant, and I am a worthless piece of garbage racist/misogynist for even hinting that it should matter. Obama has utterly sullied the office with his stench, and Hillary would do more of the same, I am confident of that. After all, just like Dear Leader Obama, she lied through her teeth about Benghazi, and then whined “what difference at this point does it make???!?” when further questioned about the murderous deaths of four American citizens in service to their great country. That’s our current leadership in a nutshell, boys and girls.

    And the brain-dead kids in the video are impressed by her!!?! Excited?!?! The USA, the greatest achievement of mankind, is unceremoniously being flushed down the crapper like a dead goldfish.

    As a Christian, I suppose I should find comfort in this, by recognizing that perhaps the horrible events depicted in the Revelation cannot actually happen unless the shining city on a hill is destroyed. If the USA becomes a decimated mess of a nation, the evil agents of this world can rise up and do their handiwork unimpeded. Boko Harem, Benghazi, Ukraine, etc., all precursors of what will come next, and arguably due to an obviously weakened USA.

    Let the self-righteous indignation flaming begin…..

    Thumb up 11

  4. richtaylor365 *

    Krauthammer gives us a smidgen of hope that Hillary is not invincible;

    http://therightscoop.com/krauthammer-democrats-grossly-overestimate-how-popular-hillary-is/

    Re: the decline of America, the voters enable the terrible leaders put in office so they pretty much deserve what they get. Whether we are beyond the point of no return, the heart hopes not but the head nods the affirm in disgust. The entitlement society (ever expanding) the massive national debt, the gargantuan size of the government (making it impossible to be held accountable or even expect it to be efficient or trustworthy). That unique experiment we used to call “The American Dream” is dying on the vine, right before our eyes.

    Thumb up 4

  5. AlexInCT

    I was convinced of this as soon as it became apparent that Obama would have a second term. And it seems rather clear, to me at least, that Hillary will be our next President.

    The people that have been conditioned to think they are owed something, just because they live, now outnumber those of us that understand that no matter how noble man is, he is really owed nothing he can’t provide for himself. We constantly hear from these morons how they have a right to things, when the only thing they really have a right to is concepts. Freedom to pursue happiness or to say what they want is a right. Healthcare is not. The only material right we have is to own arms, and that’s because the wise men that put together this republic understood that only force allowed man to protect his rights from an abusive government.

    Yes, Obama’s reelection was a harbinger of the coming doom, but he is just the manifestation of over 5 decades of the most depraved ideology to foist its cancerous infection on mankind: collectivism. Collectivism works only, and then sometimes, for the family unit, where the participants have a vested interest in each other’s well-being. Past that, it falls apart. I have never understood the progressive’s disdain of private enterprise, where those entities are beholden to stock holders, board members, and even a government, because private enterprise also wants to make a profit. I am doubly stumped by their love affair with government as the bringer of justice, as if government, has now become the all mighty and just god-entity. Do they not see that government is comprised of people that practically always are far more petty than any counterpart in private enterprise precisely because these people in government have no real checks and balances against them?

    Modern western socialist systems are doomed unless they realize that unproductive people, unless they are truly in need, should not be carried by others. As cruel as it might sound, it is the most basic tenet of nature; survival of the fittest. Unless mooching becomes one of the traits of the new alpha predator, the system we have now will implode under its own weight.

    Thumb up 3

  6. CM

    Hang on, did people vote for Obama only because he was black, or did they do so to also get “free stuff”?

    Western civilization is doomed.

    Modern western socialist systems are doomed

    We’re part of western civilisation and doing ok at the moment thanks. A good national healthcare system and an excellent world-leading government-run education system (not using vouchers) and yet a budget surplus.
    Of course how things operate here bears no relationship whatsoever to how Alex suggests. But then it’s always unclear exactly who he’s actually talking about. Seems to be some liberal caricature / bogey-man propped up permanently in the corner of every room he ever enters.

    Whether we are beyond the point of no return,

    Doesn’t every generation throw up their hands and claim that at some point?

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    Krauthammer gives us a smidgen of hope that Hillary is not invincible;

    Funny how these people who got it SO badly wrong previously have any credibility. Must be some re-set button somewhere.

    In saying that though, I totally agree with the cyclical argument. Extremely difficult for a party to win the Presidency three times in a row. There’s just no getting around it (Dukakis was a very weak candidate). Similar thing here – governments almost inevitably get 2 or 3 terms (even without term limits). The centre-right is likely to just squeak home for a 3rd term later this year, after delivering a very clever centre-left budget which leaves the actual centre-left with little to campaign on.
    Hillary is certainly fighting against history if she does stand, but it won’t be the history of gender.

    Thumb up 0

  8. richtaylor365 *

    Hang on, did people vote for Obama only because he was black, or did they do so to also get “free stuff”?

    Yes and Yes, do I really have remind you of this;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

    We’re part of western civilisation and doing ok at the moment thanks.

    And NZ is no where near morally/fiscally/racially bankrupt as the US, but you knew that already.

    Doesn’t every generation throw up their hands and claim that at some point?

    Please provide one example, any time in history, where a so called prosperous country was this far in debt, had such a large segment of it’s society not being productive and being subsidized by an ever shrinking portion of the rest. I guest you could bring up the Great Depression, but even then, people wanted to work, the American Dream was very much alive along with a work ethic where taking a handle out was shameful and repulsed the average American. Face it, you are on the outside looking in, from where you sit things are looking pretty bright. Your honest evaluation, you really think America is heading in the right direction or can possibly extricate itself from the fiscal mess of it’s own doing?

    Thumb up 7

  9. richtaylor365 *

    Extremely difficult for a party to win the Presidency three times in a row.

    I think we can discard every single political axiom (like this one) given what we just saw in the last presidential election. All the political pundits told us no president can get reelected with his signature accomplishment being so unpopular, with the unemployment rate this high, with “unfavorable” ratings so high, with consumer sentiment so down and a barely breathing economy. No, no indicator whatsoever can calculate or extrapolate the low information voter/ the appeal of entitlements, and the death knell of self respect.

    Thumb up 7

  10. CM

    How can it be both yes? Either it was because he’s black, or it’s not. If it was even partly for “free stuff” then it wasn’t just because he was black.
    If a GOP POTUS candidate was black, would the people who said they voted for Obama because he’s black vote for them? I highy doubt it. Because they’re lying, possibly even to themselves. I would say they would vote for the “free stuff” first and foremost, the black thing is a bonus. I think the best you could do is suggest that they might have stayed at home. How likely would they have been to vote for McCain or Romney had Obama been white?

    It doesn’t matter whether NZ is as *whatever* as the US. That’s not what I was responding to. Unless “western civilisation” is now just considered to be the US….pretty sure it ain’t though.

    I think the US has a strong future, I think the fears (including fiscal) are over-blown. Internal divisions by increasing disparity between super-rich and just surviving might come to a head, but politically probably won’t permitted to get bad enough that the shit starts really hitting the fan. But I think the “47%” narrative is ideological nonsense (as has been well demonstrated). I think climate change is a much larger concern.

    Political pundits like Krauthammer are selling a story. The polls told the real story, again, while the pundits told us they knew better. They didn’t. Again.
    Polling reporting about Obamacare tended to exaggerate it’s unpopularity as anyone who didn’t support it because they wanted a govt-run system were lumped in with those on the right who opposed it entirely. Unemployment rates only ever improved shortly after Obama took office, so in the end he didn’t take hit for that issue. No doubt he gained votes for trying to do something about it (as opposed to sit and watch and plead ideology). His unfavourables were weak but never got dire. And he had the advantage that Romney made some bad gaffes and didn’t really connect enough with moderates/independents. Romney was also damaged by GOP nutjobs, put there via the Tea Party. But Obama was never really in danger and won comfortably.
    You might be right though, with the demographic shift the old rules (two terms maximum per party, old white man must be elected) might fade away. Even more so if people who vote Democrat keep being written off as “low information voter”, who only vote to get themselves entitlements, or who keep getting told they’re part of that 47%. I thought the GOP was trying to address these self-administered kicks to the shin? As I say these things don’t describe anyone I know who votes left, and last I heard we’re still in the western world.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    That whole low-information voter / 47% / no self respect thing reads a little like….”let me tell you something else about the liberal…” no matter how many You-Tube videos of stupid people can be found.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT

    Hang on, did people vote for Obama only because he was black, or did they do so to also get “free stuff”?

    Yes.

    We’re part of western civilisation and doing ok at the moment thanks.

    Detroit, Chicago, the state of California and Illinois, most European nations, and plenty of other such socialistm loving entities felt the same way. In fact, a few decades ago, when others pointed out the inevitable course the left’s policies were going to take us to, the people running these places and their lefty “gimme free shit” supporters, provided this exact same answer you just did, CM. Look where they are now. Wastelands and bankrupt in case you are unable to see the point.

    A good national healthcare system and an excellent world-leading government-run education system (not using vouchers) and yet a budget surplus.

    More power to you for not having taken the path off the cliff…. YET. The problem is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money, as more and more people decide it is easier to be takers than producers. That end game is indisputable, considering the track record of every other entity to go down that path, but you are welcome to keep retending otherwise, if you must. The left’s wealth redistribution scam is a punative system, rigged to favor an oligarchy that enriches itself by praying on the envy, greed, and slothfull nature of people that have been conditioned to believe they are owed things for merely being born, and doomed because it rewards destructive behavior and punishes the very things needed to keep a society growing and prosperous. There is no way about it.

    Of course how things operate here bears no relationship whatsoever to how Alex suggests. But then it’s always unclear exactly who he’s actually talking about.

    Only to people that prefer not to hear what’s being pointed out, because then they have to actually defend what can’t be defended, or acknowledge the shit has hit the fan.

    Seems to be some liberal caricature / bogey-man propped up permanently in the corner of every room he ever enters.

    Nice strawman. As I pointed out, you don’t want to deal with the issue. Your response was to bury your head in the sand and act as if the fact that the left can be excused for failing practically everywhere else because you happen to be lucky enough to live somewhere where they have not managed to fuck things up royally enough, yet.

    Doesn’t every generation throw up their hands and claim that at some point?

    Sure they do. But this time it’s for real. I point to the financial ledgers of all these countries run by you collectivists as Exhibit A.

    Thumb up 5

  13. Iconoclast

    Hang on, did people vote for Obama only because he was black, or did they do so to also get “free stuff”?

    Let me put it this way: It seems highly unlikely that someone with his meager background could have ever achieved the Oval Office as a white male. Sure, many vote Democrat to get free stuff, or to facilitate others getting free stuff, but that’s a side issue, and has no direct bearing on why Obama got the nomination in the first place.

    If Obama had some actual qualifications, I’d be less inclined to say that he was and is essentially an Affirmative Action President. And a similar argument holds for Hillary.

    We’ re part of western civilisation and doing ok at the moment thanks.

    I’m sure you are. At the moment…

    A good national healthcare system and an excellent world-leading government-run education system (not using vouchers) and yet a budget surplus.

    Well, good for you. Sincerely. Unfortunately, our government-run education system is a train wreck. We don’t quite have a nationalized healthcare system (yet), but what we currently have with Obamacare is also a train wreck. And as anyone can tell you, we don’t have a surplus. Quite the contrary.

    I suppose I can state that our situation is due to liberal “progressive” programs and agenda, whether created/advanced by a Democrat or Republican Administration, but I suspect you would dismiss that as “hard-core partisan extreme right-wing ideology”.

    Doesn’t every generation throw up their hands and claim that at some point?

    I don’t know…the Great Generation didn’t seem to do so. The simply grew up during the Great Depression, only to come of age just in time to be drafted into service during World War II, yet persevered and eventually returned home from war as victors.

    And all we are doing right here and now is recognizing that the USA is in decline, which she obviously is. And yes, this does have repercussions, as the USA was the superpower that, along with her allies, kept Communism at bay during the Cold War. Now there are always going to be global geopolitical and military threats, who’s going to stand in their way with the USA severely weakened and made essentially irrelevant?

    Unless, of course, you are one of those who view the USA herself as the leading global threat of our time…..

    If a GOP POTUS candidate was black, would the people who said they voted for Obama because he’s black vote for them?

    Many probably would, but then, this is a hypothetical, so there is no way to really know. Which is why I detest hypotheticals. The reality is that Obama is black and he did win the White House, in spite of having a paper-thin record to run on. Like I said before, I sincerely doubt that a white male could ever win the Presidency on such a weak record as Obama’s.

    I would say they would vote for the “free stuff” first and foremost, the black thing is a bonus.

    Sure you would, but it would be just as legit to say that they voted for him because he was black, first and foremost, and the free stuff was a bonus. Gotta make “history”, after all, and “prove” (to whom I have no idea) that we are not racists. Never mind that this Administration plays the race card with extreme prejudice and aggression.

    I think the US has a strong future…

    Again, good for you, but you aren’t witnessing the decline up close and personal like many here are. You’re at a nice, safe distance in your Nuclear Free Zone.

    I think climate change is a much larger concern.

    Of course, and you cannot fathom how free-enterprise Capitalism can ever provide solutions, and therefore advocate government solutions. I think such advocacy and where it may lead are much larger concerns.

    Polling reporting about Obamacare tended to exaggerate it’s unpopularity as anyone who didn’t support it because they wanted a govt-run system were lumped in with those on the right who opposed it entirely.

    Is that the case with current, after-the-fact polling? Or is the current polling simply reflecting the harsh realities of what a train wreck it turned out to be, just as its right-wing critics said it would be?

    No doubt he gained votes for trying to do something about it (as opposed to sit and watch and plead ideology).

    Sure, it may have garnered him votes, as there are those who look to government to “do something” regardless of whether it’s the best thing to do. And again, we cannot really know whether the stimulus had any positive impact. The economic free-fall could have simply crashed about the same time the stimulus was passed, and who says massive government spending isn’t ideological?

    But Obama was never really in danger…

    Which does absolutely nothing to reassure me about our situation. Quite the contrary, it would seem to prove my point, that we as a nation are doomed to inevitable decline into irrelevancy.

    Thumb up 7

  14. CM

    Wastelands and bankrupt in case you are unable to see the point.

    So then how are we running a budget surplus Alex? (Talk about being unable to see the point)

    More power to you for not having taken the path off the cliff…. YET.

    But according to everything you write, we have taken that path, there is simply no doubt about it. We’ve run off the cliff with our healthcare and education collectivism (you wrote just the other day that US education problems stem directly from collectivism) and yet we have a budget surplus.

    The problem is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money, as more and more people decide it is easier to be takers than producers.

    Our example indicates that you are exaggerating.
    Scandavian countries don’t have higher unemployment than anywhere else. Why not? Where is the direct link between unemployment levels and ‘collectivism’? You’re so convinced, you should be able to make the case easily with evidence.

    That end game is indisputable, considering the track record of every other entity to go down that path, but you are welcome to keep retending otherwise, if you must.

    Oh I see, I’m just pretending about the budget surplus. Brilliant.
    How is it indisputable if we’re running a budget surplus, even when still recovering from the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes?

    Only to people that prefer not to hear what’s being pointed out, because then they have to actually defend what can’t be defended, or acknowledge the shit has hit the fan.

    Except that I provided you with an example which shows that your orthodoxy can’t be true. It IS possible to have these things but also avoid high tax rates, and run a budget surplus.

    Nice strawman.

    Yes exactly – you keep arguing against the same strawman.

    As I pointed out, you don’t want to deal with the issue.

    I have by providing an easy local example of how your orthodoxy is…..well, just orthodoxy. Like all extremism and ideology it doesn’t stand up to the simplest of scrutiny.

    You are one who failed to respond to my question in the other thread: “Alex, what sort of governments and school systems do they have in South Korea, Finland, Canada, and New Zealand? Do they have private education systems, where the governments are hands-off?”

    http://right-thinking.com/2014/05/15/a-microcosm-of-education-fail/

    Your response was to bury your head in the sand and act as if the fact that the left can be excused for failing practically everywhere else because you happen to be lucky enough to live somewhere where they have not managed to fuck things up royally enough, yet.

    Explain why it hasn’t then. According to you it should be even close to working. How do we have a budget surplus if we’re just a bunch of collectivists? Why is our govt-run education system so well regarded and how does it perform so well?

    Sure they do. But this time it’s for real.

    I’m sure it’s ALWAYS for real this time.

    point to the financial ledgers of all these countries run by you collectivists as Exhibit A.

    You are arguing a rigid position of ideology/orthodoxy. Therefore it’s the examples that don’t fit that you need to explain. But I bet you’ll just repeat the same old mantras yet again instead. One day it would be interesting to actually to see you attempt to defend your position.

    Thumb up 1

  15. CM

    Let me put it this way: It seems highly unlikely that someone with his meager background could have ever achieved the Oval Office as a white male.

    I agree that it’s unusual for a one-term Senator to win the Presidency, but I’d suggest he has an x-factor that greatly assisted, which includes his oratory skills. Arriving at the right time, after two terms of GWB also played a big part. I think the ‘black’ thing only gets you so far. If those other factors had not been in play I don’t think he would have been the candidate. Do you?

    Sure, many vote Democrat to get free stuff, or to facilitate others getting free stuff, but that’s a side issue, and has no direct bearing on why Obama got the nomination in the first place.

    I think it’s extremely relevant if the claim is “Obama was elected because he was black. Period. End of discussion.” Others like Alex and Rich ALSO want to claim that people voted for him because he promised them lots of free stuff.

    If Obama had some actual qualifications,

    What qualifies someone to be President?

    I’d be less inclined to say that he was and is essentially an Affirmative Action President. And a similar argument holds for Hillary.

    As explained, I don’t think that argument works. I also think it’s extremely self-defeating (not to mention offensive to those who work hard and make a success of themselves, given that anyone reaching his pre-Presidential success would be considered a success, and certainly if they were white it would be all about the hard-work and good choices that got them there).

    I’m sure you are. At the moment…

    But if the mechanisms of our doom are built in the system, why/how is it working ok? How did we emerge from the GFC in better shape than many?

    Well, good for you. Sincerely.

    Thanks (nothing to do with me personally, obviously….although I didn’t vote for them, I think they’ve done a pretty decent job……). I do appreciate the sentiment though (nice change from our usual).

    Unfortunately, our government-run education system is a train wreck. We don’t quite have a nationalized healthcare system (yet), but what we currently have with Obamacare is also a train wreck. And as anyone can tell you, we don’t have a surplus. Quite the contrary.

    Right, but the primary reason for the train-wreck isn’t because government is in charge of those things. It’s clearly more specific than that. That’s what I’ve taken issue with – lazily allocating blame based on political orthodoxy. And applying a specific situation to ‘the western world’. The western world continues to do very well. Obviously to anyone seeking a utopia it’s can always be considered a failure though.

    I suppose I can state that our situation is due to liberal “progressive” programs and agenda, whether created/advanced by a Democrat or Republican Administration, but I suspect you would dismiss that as “hard-core partisan extreme right-wing ideology”.

    Ah, here we go. Maybe we can not drag all that baggage into this thread.
    Yes you can say that. Again, I was commenting on the lazy argument being made.

    I don’t know…the Great Generation didn’t seem to do so. The simply grew up during the Great Depression, only to come of age just in time to be drafted into service during World War II, yet persevered and eventually returned home from war as victors.

    Ah but then they had kids who had no respect and grew their hair long and listened to rock and roll. I think the generation you are talking about were greatly disappointed (and angry and confused), given the sacrifices they had made. I think they are prime examples.

    And all we are doing right here and now is recognizing that the USA is in decline, which she obviously is.

    There is a significant difference between the US being in some sort of ‘decline’ and ‘western civilization being doomed’. To a shitload of people (particularly non-whites, and even more particularly non-white non-males, there have never been greater opportunities, including in the US).

    And yes, this does have repercussions, as the USA was the superpower that, along with her allies, kept Communism at bay during the Cold War. Now there are always going to be global geopolitical and military threats, who’s going to stand in their way with the USA severely weakened and made essentially irrelevant?

    Obviously we’re speculating here but I highly doubt that the US will be irrelevant in the medium to long term.
    However I think you are right in terms of asking that question – others will need to stand up, likely collectively.

    Unless, of course, you are one of those who view the USA herself as the leading global threat of our time…..

    Not even remotely. Overall the USA is a significant positive global force. I’ve never thought or claimed anything else. You can keep me off that list.

    Many probably would, but then, this is a hypothetical, so there is no way to really know. Which is why I detest hypotheticals.

    Fair enough. But it’s also pure speculation to suggest that ” Obama was elected because he was black. Period. End of discussion. And Hillary will be elected because she is a woman. Period. End of discussion.” I don’t see there being much difference to claiming that and speculating what would have happened had the GOP candidate been black, and Obama (standing for the Democrats) was white. Or any other variations.

    The reality is that Obama is black and he did win the White House, in spite of having a paper-thin record to run on.

    And I think it’s far too simplistic (and ultimately self-defeating) to believe that. I think a number of important factors played a significant part in Obama being elected. I think his colour was only one. I certainly would agree that it was one, but I don’t think he would have been elected if the other factors weren’t also in play. If he couldn’t connect to the electorate I doubt he’d have been as popular.

    Like I said before, I sincerely doubt that a white male could ever win the Presidency on such a weak record as Obama’s.

    But you detest hypotheticals……;-) Although we can look at the empirical evidence….
    By ‘ever’ I assume you mean in modern times, because Lincoln had one term in Congress, an unremarkable stint in the Illinois House of Representatives, and an unsuccessful Senate campaign.
    In recent times GWB had six years as a Big-State Governor, but Texas apparently has a weak executive, with much of the power in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor and the state legislature. Harding was an unremarkable first-term Senator. Cleveland went from Sheriff of Buffalo to POTUS in the span of three years, two months and three days. Carter served one term as Governor of a state with a fraction of the population of New York or California. Prior to that, he spent four years in the State Senate.
    Obama was a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, so his academic credentials are decent.

    Sure you would, but it would be just as legit to say that they voted for him because he was black, first and foremost, and the free stuff was a bonus.

    That’s why I asked about what people might do if a GOP candidate was black (and the Democrat was white). Would the GOP candidate win because he was black? (I guess now that the ‘colour-barrier has been lifted’ it might not be an important consideration again).
    I would argue the ‘free stuff’ is a much more important factor. These people apparently want ‘free stuff’ first and foremost. Presumably they don’t really give a shit who it giving it to them.

    Gotta make “history”, after all, and “prove” (to whom I have no idea) that we are not racists.

    Personally I CAN see (and appreciate) the motivation for wanting to get rid of a barrier (perceived or otherwise, but then perception is reality). I just don’t see it as a sufficient motivation or driving force to make all other factors irrelevant. Sure some might have stayed at home if Obama had been white (they surely would not have voted McCain/Romney), but Obama won both elections comfortably.

    Again, good for you, but you aren’t witnessing the decline up close and personal like many here are. You’re at a nice, safe distance in your Nuclear Free Zone.

    That is very true. I am most certainly an outside observer.

    Of course, and you cannot fathom how free-enterprise Capitalism can ever provide solutions,

    To the contrary, private enterprise has a significant role to play. Absolutely crucial.

    and therefore advocate government solutions.

    Not quite. I don’t see how free-enterprise Capitalism can do it alone.

    I think such advocacy and where it may lead are much larger concerns.

    I have no doubt.

    Is that the case with current, after-the-fact polling? Or is the current polling simply reflecting the harsh realities of what a train wreck it turned out to be, just as its right-wing critics said it would be?

    Will have a look when I get the chance.

    Sure, it may have garnered him votes, as there are those who look to government to “do something” regardless of whether it’s the best thing to do. And again, we cannot really know whether the stimulus had any positive impact. The economic free-fall could have simply crashed about the same time the stimulus was passed, and who says massive government spending isn’t ideological?

    My point was that instead of Obama suffering politically from an “unemployment rate this high” the electorate didn’t hold him responsible, and a significant factor in that is likely to be the action that he took. So although (historically) high unemployment is a factor in terms of someone being re-elected, in this case he (1) came in afterwards (2) tried to do actively do something about it. So perhaps not really bucking a trend there once you get beyond the surface.

    Which does absolutely nothing to reassure me about our situation. Quite the contrary, it would seem to prove my point, that we as a nation are doomed to inevitable decline into irrelevancy.

    My point was that there were key factors at play which means the rules weren’t all necessarily thrown out when Obama was re-elected. At both elections I think he had the good fortunate at being the right candidate at the right time.
    I doubt I could ever reassure you about anything. I can assure you of that….’-)

    Nevertheless, regardless of any disagreements, I genuinely do empathise with your lament. As I did when Obama won re-election. It clearly sucks a great deal to feel like that about a country you obviously love so much. I don’t actually wish that on any of you.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Iconoclast

    I agree that it’s unusual for a one-term Senator to win the Presidency, but I’d suggest he has an x-factor that greatly assisted, which includes his oratory skills. Arriving at the right time, after two terms of GWB also played a big part. I think the ‘black’ thing only gets you so far. If those other factors had not been in play I don’t think he would have been the candidate. Do you?

    Well, for starters, let’s not give Obama too much credit for oratory skills. There are YouTube videos of him stammering all over the place when his trusty TelePrompTer bails on him. And “being at the right place at the right time” is a cliche that can apply to just about anybody. Would a white male be credited for “oratory skills” when his dependency on a TelePrompTer is so obvious? Yeah, hypothetical question, but an interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

    What qualifies someone to be President?

    Admittedly, that depends on who you ask. From a Constitutional perspective, all you need to be is at least 35 years old, a native-born American, and a resident of the USA proper for 14 years. Based on that, Obama qualifies, birther controversies notwithstanding. But then, I also qualify based on those criteria.

    As explained, I don’t think that argument works. I also think it’s extremely self-defeating (not to mention offensive to those who work hard and make a success of themselves, given that anyone reaching his pre-Presidential success would be considered a success, and certainly if they were white it would be all about the hard-work and good choices that got them there).

    But just above, you credited his being there “at the right time”, which would rather undermine the “hard work” argument. And frankly, I don’t really care how “offensive” some may find it. Some find Obama’s “success” being built on such a weak foundation to be offensive. Not to mention dangerous.

    Hell, Obama himself once pontificated, “let me tell you something, there are a lot of hard-working people out there”. That was from his infamous “you didn’t build that” speech, remember that? Obama himself talks down personal success when it suits. Yeah, I know, “you didn’t build that” refers to infrastructure, but that doesn’t detract from the overall derisive tone of the speech.

    How did we emerge from the GFC in better shape than many?

    Did your government implement a deficit spending stimulus package? And was your economy as hard hit in the first place?

    Right, but the primary reason for the train-wreck isn’t because government is in charge of those things. It’s clearly more specific than that.

    Not for Obamacare, it isn’t. That’s clearly an example of government overreach being the direct cause. Regarding education, the system is corrupt. I’m fairly certain that our government spends far more on education that yours does, yet our students are obviously not benefiting from all that spending. Also obvious as that somebody is benefiting. Vouchers aren’t necessarily a magic bullet, but they do represent a way out of a corrupt and broken system, which may explain why many of the Powers That Be oppose them.

    And our $17 trillion dollar government debt is clearly due to the government.

    There is a significant difference between the US being in some sort of ‘decline’ and ‘western civilization being doomed’.

    If a strong USA is what stands between western civilization and the enemies thereof, a weakened USA can certainly be a harbinger of doom.

    Although we can look at the empirical evidence…

    Okay, let’s…

    By ‘ever’ I assume you mean in modern times, because Lincoln had one term in Congress, an unremarkable stint in the Illinois House of Representatives, and an unsuccessful Senate campaign.

    Which is already more experience that Obama had. Of course, Lincoln was quite unpopular and controversial, given his proclamation of emancipation, shutting down of newspapers and ultimately going to war against what were once fellow Americans. Regardless, an assassin’s bullet rather pre-empted any possibility of a second term, and it’s Obama’s re-election that I am using as an indicator of our ultimate ruin. The historical reality is that Lincoln saved the Union, while all appearances are that Obama seeks to severely weaken it. Also, Lincoln served in an era that predates progressivism, which didn’t take hold in the USA until later in the 19th Century.

    In recent times GWB had six years as a Big-State Governor, but Texas apparently has a weak executive, with much of the power in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor and the state legislature.

    Attempts to trivialize aside, it still represents six years of Executive experience, compared to Obama’s zero years.

    Harding was an unremarkable first-term Senator.

    …who had previously served two terms as a state senator in Ohio, as well as Lieutenant Governor.

    Cleveland went from Sheriff of Buffalo to POTUS in the span of three years, two months and three days.

    Interesting how you leave out the highly pertinent facts that he was the Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York during that time, all of which represents Executive experience.

    Carter served one term as Governor of a state with a fraction of the population of New York or California. Prior to that, he spent four years in the State Senate.

    And he proved to be a disaster of a President, second only to Obama in the “Worst President Ever” category, at least in terms of living memory. Nevertheless, it represents Executive experience, something again Obama lacked.

    Obama was a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, so his academic credentials are decent.

    It should be apparent that academic credentials are no substitute for real-world experience. And hell, Obama’s academic credentials are no better that those of his immediate predecessor, who was continually trashed as a low-IQ moron.

    The point is, your examples fail to make your case that Obama’s paper-thin record was anything but paper-thin. In some cases, you simply cherry-picked your facts while leaving out others. In no case did you demonstrate a record as weak as Obama’s record.

    That’s why I asked about what people might do if a GOP candidate was black (and the Democrat was white).

    But the problem is that I am claiming, in the specific case of Obama, that he was elected because he was black, period, end of discussion, primarily because he doesn’t have any real leadership qualifications or executive experience. I am arguing that, in the specific case of Obama, it was his skin color, first and foremost, that got him into the White House. If he were white, running on that record of his, I do not see how he would have prevailed against an ex-POW Vietnam veteran, age disparity notwithstanding. And I truly doubt that he would have secured the nomination against Hillary in the first place. Yes, hypotheticals, but then, I’m not asking you “what ifs?” based on hypotheticals, but am merely expressing my own views through them.

    If a black GOP candidate had such a weak record, based on historical reality of how the MSM treats GOP candidates in general, he or she would be mercilessly eviscerated by the media. Case in point is Dan Quayle, who was white and a VP candidate. Also consider how the MSM treated Palin, who still had more execute experience than Obama, and she was likewise a VP candidate.

    Nevertheless, regardless of any disagreements, I genuinely do empathise with your lament. As I did when Obama won re-election. It clearly sucks a great deal to feel like that about a country you obviously love so much. I don’t actually wish that on any of you.

    Thanks. These sentiments are appreciated.

    Thumb up 10

  17. Seattle Outcast

    which includes his oratory skills

    You mean his ability to give a mediocre speech off a teleprompter. Without said teleprompter he’s a complete dweeb at public speaking, given to “umm”, “ahh”, “urr”, confused pauses, and losing track of what he’s talking about.

    There’s nothing in his head that wasn’t plopped there first by his mentors and managers, at least one of which was a domestic terrorist who’s confessed to ghost writing Obama’s books. Obama was/is nothing more than the stereotypical blank slate that the left and a complicit press projected their ideal of a candidate onto for the purposes of getting a puppet elected.

    Thumb up 7

  18. Xetrov

    Attempts to trivialize aside, it still represents six years of Executive experience, compared to Obama’s zero years.

    Hey! He was a successful “community organizer”. Don’t discount the amount of executive skills that takes.

    Thumb up 6

  19. CM

    Well, for starters, let’s not give Obama too much credit for oratory skills. There are YouTube videos of him stammering all over the place when his trusty TelePrompTer bails on him. And “being at the right place at the right time” is a cliche that can apply to just about anybody. Would a white male be credited for “oratory skills” when his dependency on a TelePrompTer is so obvious? Yeah, hypothetical question, but an interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

    All these complaints (from you and others) about his oratory are rather meaningless. The fact is, many many times people (of all political stripes) came away from hearing him speak (in person, on television) and said “Wow”. That is a fact. His ability to speak in a way that connects with a lot of people (not you obviously) is one of the reasons his political career moved quickly.
    I’ve heard it many times but I’m still not sure what the point of whining about the oratory thing is. Other than for the sake of whining. It’s inarguable that a shitload of people wanted to hear him speak. I don’t have to give him any sort of ‘credit’ for it, it’s just reality, and partly explains why he was popular enough to win the Presidency. In my opinion denying that is to delude yourself. That you don’t want to give him too much credit is not relevant.

    Admittedly, that depends on who you ask. From a Constitutional perspective, all you need to be is at least 35 years old, a native-born American, and a resident of the USA proper for 14 years. Based on that, Obama qualifies, birther controversies notwithstanding. But then, I also qualify based on those criteria.

    Obviously you’re meaning a lot more than just from a Constitutional perspective. As we can see from your dissection of the examples. It appears that Obama’s lack of ‘Executive experience’ is you main issue.

    But just above, you credited his being there “at the right time”, which would rather undermine the “hard work” argument.

    It doesn’t undermine it at all. By any reasonable measure Obama worked hard and become a success prior to being a possible Presidential candidate. However that he became President, in my view, was a matter of a whole lot of things (many outside his control) coming together. There is no inconsistency there. It happens to people all the time. Part of the whole theology of the right is that you work hard and make good choice then by doing so you’ll ‘create your own luck’. I.e. you need to get yourself in the right positions. And yet with Obama I’ve heard many comments from people on right downplaying (or dismissing entirely) any hard work or desire to succeed, which always sets off some pretty serious alarm bells. Apparently all that can be set aside because ‘Affirmative Action’ can just replace it.

    And frankly, I don’t really care how “offensive” some may find it.

    I think almost all the time offense is given the person giving it doesn’t really care.

    Hell, Obama himself once pontificated, “let me tell you something, there are a lot of hard-working people out there”. That was from his infamous “you didn’t build that” speech, remember that? Obama himself talks down personal success when it suits. Yeah, I know, “you didn’t build that” refers to infrastructure, but that doesn’t detract from the overall derisive tone of the speech.

    I know that speech, I went through it in detail at the time. It was a great speech. I pointed out how strongly throughout the speech he emphasises the importance of working hard to achieve success. The speech wasn’t even remotely derisive in my view.
    You do know that using words like ‘pontificated’ suggests that whatever Obama does and says will be wrong, right? That’s certainly the perception. I’m talking throughout your writing, that’s just an example. I’m guessing that you don’t care, I just wondered whether you realised. It doesn’t assist the actual points you’re trying to make, instead it weakens them.

    Did your government implement a deficit spending stimulus package? And was your economy as hard hit in the first place?

    Yes to the first. As to the second, our economy is obviously extremely small by comparison. But do either of those matter, given that the argument is that western socialist systems can’t work because they spend more money than they take in (or, they’ll always end up having more takers than makers)?
    My argument is that it depends how it’s done, rather than that it is done. It’s not nearly as (ideologically) simplistic as people like Alex continue to make out.

    Not for Obamacare, it isn’t. That’s clearly an example of government overreach being the direct cause. Regarding education, the system is corrupt. I’m fairly certain that our government spends far more on education that yours does, yet our students are obviously not benefiting from all that spending. Also obvious as that somebody is benefiting. Vouchers aren’t necessarily a magic bullet, but they do represent a way out of a corrupt and broken system, which may explain why many of the Powers That Be oppose them.

    And our $17 trillion dollar government debt is clearly due to the government.

    I would never claim that government can’t royally fuck things up. My argument is that it’s not inherently inevitable because of ideology.

    If a strong USA is what stands between western civilization and the enemies thereof, a weakened USA can certainly be a harbinger of doom.

    “If and “can”, sure. You could no doubt construct such an argument.
    But one (a ‘decline’ in the US) doesn’t automatically or inherently have to mean the other (western civilisation is doomed).

    The historical reality is that Lincoln saved the Union, while all appearances are that Obama seeks to severely weaken it.

    What happened once they became President isn’t the point. We’re talking about qualifications to start with.

    It should be apparent that academic credentials are no substitute for real-world experience.

    I would never argue otherwise. However I’m sure we all have different ideas about what “real-world experience” means. I know you probably primarily mean ‘Executive experience’ (even for just a short time apparently). Obama had many different experiences in his life to any other President, but I’m sure many people dismiss them all as not being relevant.

    And hell, Obama’s academic credentials are no better that those of his immediate predecessor, who was continually trashed as a low-IQ moron.

    Are you confining “academic credentials” to college grades?

    The point is, your examples fail to make your case that Obama’s paper-thin record was anything but paper-thin.

    That’s not my ‘case’.
    I said “I agree that it’s unusual for a one-term Senator to win the Presidency”. I also pointed to other factors that I considered were crucial to him winning the Presidency.

    But the problem is that I am claiming, in the specific case of Obama, that he was elected because he was black, period, end of discussion, primarily because he doesn’t have any real leadership qualifications or executive experience. I am arguing that, in the specific case of Obama, it was his skin color, first and foremost, that got him into the White House.

    First you say that 100% of the reason he was elected was because he is black (i.e. nothing else mattered). And then you say that it was only the most important factor. Unless I’m not understanding some subtle difference there, they are different things.

    If he were white, running on that record of his, I do not see how he would have prevailed against an ex-POW Vietnam veteran, age disparity notwithstanding. And I truly doubt that he would have secured the nomination against Hillary in the first place. Yes, hypotheticals, but then, I’m not asking you “what ifs?” based on hypotheticals, but am merely expressing my own views through them.

    But you appear to be discounting or ignoring all other factors I mentioned. A lack of executive experience /leadership qualifications isn’t the only other relevant factor to consider. Very clearly it wasn’t a significant factor in the election. But there were other factors. Perhaps it isn’t as important as it once was. Or perhaps it never was as important as it seems (as outlined, there are plenty of Presidents elected with little experience, one term of something, or less).

    Thing is, being black isn’t just about skin colour. It’s about the experience of growing up as a black person. Even if someone claims to have voted for him because he’s black, they aren’t actually saying it’s JUST the colour of the skin. They’re likely to be including everything that goes along with that. But I can see the attraction of ignoring that.

    Hey! He was a successful “community organizer”. Don’t discount the amount of executive skills that takes.

    See people on the right like to mock that, but in reality I’m sure it was an actual positive to some voters (and no, not just your ‘47%’). Or at least it wasn’t a negative. Lots of different skills (many of them ‘real-life’) involved in that role, from what I understand. Lot of organisation and communications skills needed to do that effectively. A lot of people would not be cut out for it, or succeed in it.
    Just seems like another obvious blind spot (more self-administered kicks to the shins).

    Thumb up 0

  20. Xetrov

    See people on the right like to mock that

    No shit. It’s like saying I’m qualified to be the US ambassador to Russia because my older brothers are ass-holes that I had to deal with growing up.

    Or at least it wasn’t a negative.

    Yeah, not so much.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york

    Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

    Lots of different skills (many of them ‘real-life’) involved in that role

    Yeah, like

    Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. At first, the organizer tackled small stuff, like demanding the repair of streetlights in a city park; later, when the group gained confidence, the organizer could take on bigger targets. But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

    Powerful skills. Sounds like a liberal’s wet dream.

    Thumb up 3

  21. Xetrov

    Says the guy who references media matters.

    Read the rest of the article, it actually goes into quite a bit of detail about what Obama did as a “community organizer”. Let me know what parts of his “career” you think helped his qualifications for the office of POTUS.

    Thumb up 3

  22. CM

    Says the guy who references media matters.

    In what context is it meaningful. Did I reference that site for a specific quote or date or similar, or was I attempt to portray their editorialising/commentary/opinion as ‘fact’?

    Read the rest of the article, it actually goes into quite a bit of detail about what Obama did as a “community organizer”. Let me know what parts of his “career” you think helped his qualifications for the office of POTUS.

    Yeah I’m happy to read it. It’s not somewhere one would go to try and get an impartial view of ANYTHING to do with Obama though is it. If you relied on it, you’d unlikely to have a view that matches reality.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Xetrov

    If you relied on it, you’d unlikely to have a view that matches reality

    I disagree. Feel free to point out the fictitious parts.

    Thumb up 4

  24. CM

    Didn’t say it, or anything in it, would be made up.
    Ok i read it. It was actually much better than I expected. Well until the end where he fails because he just didn’t implement significant change as per the right wing agenda. I do find it a little strange that the part you quoted is the least relevant part of the whole article (it obviously didn’t apply to him in terms of style, he took the opposite approach).
    But in terms of skills/attributes that would assist in the office of POTUS, I would suggest leadership, strategy, dealing with a variety of different people, figuring out the very nature of power and how it works, persuasiveness and selling of ideas, problem-solving. A major part of being a leader is inspiring confidence in others, bringing them along with you.
    Interesting that the role is not just doing things for people but enabling them to do something for themselves (i.e. enabling and empowering them to be responsible for getting out there and doing things that will improvement their lives and neighbourhood, like the jobs centre and asbestos removal). Often it seems like it’s tapping into things that exist but the people don’t know about, or don’t know how to access.

    It’s not surprising that blacks aren’t going to vote for those who mock people for helping them (like Palin and Giuliani did at the GOP Convention in 2008). As I say, self-administered kicks to the shin.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    “agitating them until they become so upset about their condition”

    Yeah because that’s not insulting at all. They were totally fine with having no youth summer employment opportunities. And if they didn’t know about the asbestos, it wouldn’t have hurt them.
    You’d think after a while that shin would start to hurt and you’d re-think why you’re swinging that heel of your other foot into it over and over and over again.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    And community organizers — paid and unpaid — are a critical part of building such a movement. The best work among the grassroots the people, getting to know the people who make up communities and gaining intimate knowledge of their problems in ways that cannot be gleaned from the photo-op appearances by typical politicians. The best empower people to express their needs and concerns, not just as individuals but as a more powerful collective of diverse but coordinated souls. This means that community organizers must also be skilled at communication, negotiation, and compromise — traits required of any good leader.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-kurashige/dont-dis-community-organi_b_124069.html

    Makes obvious sense to me. Is it enough, by itself, to prepare someone to be POTUS? No way, but then that’s not what anyone is claiming.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Iconoclast

    All these complaints (from you and others) about his oratory are rather meaningless.

    You are the one who brought up his “oratory skills”, not me. I’m just saying, let’s keep a proper perspective. Without his TelePrompTer, Obama is demonstrably quite the bumbler, or certainly can be at the very least. Not sure why anyone would dispute that, given the YouTube evidence. And let’s not forget the 57th state and other such gaffs.

    The fact is, many many times people (of all political stripes) came away from hearing him speak (in person, on television) and said “Wow”. That is a fact. His ability to speak in a way that connects with a lot of people (not you obviously) is one of the reasons his political career moved quickly.

    Well, frankly, the parallels with Hitler and his oratory skills and quick political ascendency and “ability to connect” leave me even more concerned than before. Regardless, I am still not convinced that his “oratory skills” would have gotten him the Democrat nomination if he were a white boy.

    I’ve heard it many times but I’m still not sure what the point of whining about the oratory thing is.

    Again, you brought it up, not me. If anything, you appear to be whining about legitimate criticism of those skills.

    In my opinion denying that is to delude yourself.

    Your opinion is noted.

    That you don’t want to give him too much credit is not relevant.

    Nonsense. What is irrelevant is your wanting to give him so much credit, your claims to not be doing so notwithstanding.

    Like I said, the overall milieu was “making history” by electing our first black President. That was the overwhelming meme (and I utterly hate the word “meme”) during the entire campaign. The “gifted oratory skills” was just icing on the cake. Like I keep saying, I believe he wouldn’t have even been nominated if he was white. Hillary would have been.

    At the very least, you have yet to convince me otherwise.

    Apparently all that can be set aside because ‘Affirmative Action’ can just replace it.

    Well, it is what it is, no matter how offensive it may be to some. Affirmative Action is codified policy here. Sure, those who used the program “worked hard” and so forth, but that doesn’t change the fact that all too often, they ended up over their heads in situations that they were not prepared to handle, right or wrong, and that their ethnicity was the primary reason they were in that situation to begin with.

    Like I said, you have yet to make the case that a white Obama would have been elected, or even nominated against Hillary and the Clinton political machine.

    I would never claim that government can’t royally fuck things up. My argument is that it’s not inherently inevitable because of ideology.

    Whether it’s “inherently inevitable” is fertile ground for debate. That it happens to be the case in this instance is not.

    “If and “can”, sure. You could no doubt construct such an argument.
    But one (a ‘decline’ in the US) doesn’t automatically or inherently have to mean the other (western civilisation is doomed).

    Maybe not, but I happen to believe that it does, given that I do not see much by way of alternatives.

    First you say that 100% of the reason he was elected was because he is black (i.e. nothing else mattered). And then you say that it was only the most important factor.

    What I am saying is that he wouldn’t be President if he were white. You can interpret that any way you want. I mean, what if he were Hispanic? Or Asian? Who knows? But he is black.

    Thing is, being black isn’t just about skin colour. It’s about the experience of growing up as a black person.

    And what does that mean, exactly? Obama grew up in a rather privileged environment, lived in Hawaii, attended private schools, traveled, etc. Contrast that with Condoleeza Rice, who was the daughter of a sharecropper who grew up in the Jim Crow South during the turbulent Civil Rights era.

    Even if someone claims to have voted for him because he’s black, they aren’t actually saying it’s JUST the colour of the skin. They’re likely to be including everything that goes along with that. But I can see the attraction of ignoring that.

    Ignoring what? Your projections into some hypothetical voter? There is nothing of substance to “ignore”.

    Thumb up 8

  28. Iconoclast

    I consider the following to be the money quotes from the article:

    Obama applied his considerable organizational skills to perpetuating the old, failed way of doing things.

    When hope is the product, Obama can sell it with the best of them.

    Instead of questioning his own premises, he concluded that he simply needed more power to get the job done. So he made plans to run for political office. And in each successive office, he has concluded that he did not have enough power to get the job done, so now he is running for the most powerful office in the land.

    And what if he gets it? He’ll be the biggest, strongest organizer in the world. He’ll dazzle the country with his message of hope and possibility. But we shouldn’t expect much to actually get done.

    Of course, some things did “get done”, the disastrous Obamacare being the prime example.

    Thumb up 8

  29. CM

    You are the one who brought up his “oratory skills”, not me. I’m just saying, let’s keep a proper perspective. Without his TelePrompTer, Obama is demonstrably quite the bumbler, or certainly can be at the very least. Not sure why anyone would dispute that, given the YouTube evidence. And let’s not forget the 57th state and other such gaffs.

    Ok well you seemed to be missing my point there.

    Well, frankly, the parallels with Hitler and his oratory skills and quick political ascendency and “ability to connect” leave me even more concerned than before.

    Parallels with Hitler. Wow, ok. That’s an interesting comparison to make, for no reason whatsoever. There are plenty of other orators in history, But Obama and Hitler it is. Brilliant.

    Regardless, I am still not convinced that his “oratory skills” would have gotten him the Democrat nomination if he were a white boy.

    I never claimed any one factor. I’ve said the exact opposite in fact.

    Again, you brought it up, not me.

    So?

    If anything, you appear to be whining about legitimate criticism of those skills.

    I’m simply observing an ongoing dismissal that is counter-productive. By all means continue. It just comes across as petty and rather silly given the observable historical fact that when he wasn’t stumbling and tripping over the teleprompter he was having quite an effect on a larger number of people. But yeah, look at that shiny You-Tube clip over there!

    Nonsense. What is irrelevant is your wanting to give him so much credit, your claims to not be doing so notwithstanding.

    Credit is irrelevant. You are (very clearly) ignoring reality on this issue, and pointlessly so.

    Whether it’s “inherently inevitable” is fertile ground for debate.

    Not according to some people.

    And what does that mean, exactly? Obama grew up in a rather privileged environment, lived in Hawaii, attended private schools, traveled, etc. Contrast that with Condoleeza Rice, who was the daughter of a sharecropper who grew up in the Jim Crow South during the turbulent Civil Rights era.

    I don’t believe those things change the fundamentals that come with having a certain skin colour.
    What exactly does living in Hawaii mean?
    You’re assuming I’d argue Rice wouldn’t bring her experiences with her also?
    If she stood and won would it only because she was black?

    Ignoring what? Your projections into some hypothetical voter? There is nothing of substance to “ignore”.

    Yeah sure, nothing of substance there. The experience of whites and blacks in America (and beyond) is interchangeable. There are no collective experiences, history plays no part in anything. There is no reason whatsoever for people to want to be represented by people who share something in common with them.

    This is another example of self-administered shin-kicking. I honestly don’t see how the right is going to grow that tent if they only ever look inward like this.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    Parallels with Hitler. Wow, ok. That’s an interesting comparison to make, for no reason whatsoever.

    Must everything have a “reason” for it? You mentioned three specific things, 1) oratory skills, 2) ability to “connect with people” and 3) rapid political ascendency, and, for better or worse, Hitler came immediately to mind. If the comparison is invalid, explain why. If you have a more benign example, feel free to share.

    There are plenty of other orators in history…

    Indeed there are, but again, you mentioned three specific items, only one of which was oratory skills. Interesting how you now try to pretend two of them were never mentioned. Move goal posts, much?

    So?

    So you’re in no position to be accusing anybody of “whining about Obama’s oratory skills”, and it’s disturbing that you need to have these kinds of things spelled out for you.

    It just comes across as petty and silly given the observable historical fact that when he wasn’t stumbling and tripping over the teleprompter he was having quite an effect on a larger number of people.

    So? Other orators in history did likewise without being so apparently dependent on a TelePrompTer. That’s the point you seem to be dodging.

    Thumb up 4

  31. Iconoclast

    But yeah, look at that shiny You-Tube clip over there!

    Dismissing evidence now, are we? Talk about lame…”Pay no attention to that evidence over there, listen to what I say instead! Otherwise, ‘you are (very clearly) ignoring reality on this issue, and pointlessly so.'”. Delightfully ironic.

    What exactly does living in Hawaii mean?

    Again I have to spell things out for you…it means living in a tropical paradise as opposed to a ghetto, where large numbers of blacks grow up. Or as opposed to the deep south during a period of civil unrest, where having dark skin could be dangerous. Hawaii has a higher cost of living than the southern state have; living n priviledge would be comparatively easier in the south than in Hawaii as money would go further there.

    You’re assuming I’d argue Rice wouldn’t bring her experiences with her also?

    I am assuming nothing of the kind.

    If she stood and won would it only because she was black?

    If her backgound were similar to Obama’s then yes, quite possibly. But it isn’t similar at all. That’s the point. For starters, she’s in the wrong party; as a Republican, she would be eviscerated by the MSM, as I have noted before. By contrast, the MSM was beside itself fawning over the liberal Obama. Liberals always get preferencial treatment by the MSM, but a black liberal candidate? The preferencialness goes off the charts.

    The experience of whites and blacks in America (and beyond) is interchangeable. There are no collective experiences, history plays no part in anything.

    These little mental meltdowns of yours are at the same time entertaining and tedious, an interesting yet dubious accomplishment. I am saying nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I am saying Obama’s background is not like that of a typical person, whether black or white. Collective black experience? I would argue that Condi’s upbrining was closer to typical than Obama’s, right or wrong, for better or worse.

    There is no reason whatsoever for people to want to be represented by people who share something in common with them

    You’re making my point for me, chief. Obama has little in common with the typical American voter, but thanks to a dark complexion and a compliant MSM, he can get away witn pretending he does.

    Thumb up 4

  32. Iconoclast

    Self-righteous indignation noted and dismissed. For an example of a black person who was given no mercy by the MSM, I give you Clarence Thomas. He was in the wrong party, after all, just like Condi, and unlike Obama. I guess Thomas just wasn’t a gifted orator…..

    Thumb up 4

  33. AlexInCT

    Stop whooping that poor retard so hard Iconoclast, you are making me feel sorry for the fool. Besides, he seems to be immune to reason, facts, and logic, anyway.

    Thumb up 0