My problem is Obama brought the chip on his shoulder with him into the White House. Does he have reason to be angry ? Sure. Could he be a bigger man and not drag that shit with him into the highest office in the land ? Dare I ask that we elect people who don’t bring their own personal shit into the equation when it comes to governing our country and making policy.
Then let’s eliminate the vast majority of Men whom had held the office of President, Max.
In fact; I think we can disqualify all of them based on that criteria.
1 Like
But the problem was that Kaine actually had substance in the attacks/rebuttals thrown against Trump. That’s what I’m stating is that despite the fact that Pence tried to interject actual policy it was so easily countered by Trump’s plethora of failures that it was a completely voided. Kaine also did an excellent job of steering the accusations to not appear completely combative.
This is not a dig on Pence by any means, I actually think he handled himself extremely well given what he was up against and more importantly what he had to defend from Trump. (It is after all the VPs job to defend the candidates position) Couple that with one of the worst bias I’ve seen in a debate moderater and it makes for a grim picture on Pences prospects.
Can you identify a single instance in which Obama’s willingness to observe and understand the realities of racial disparity negatively affected the making of policy? When I say policy I mean just that: policy. Not some soundbite from a speech. Policy. And let’s just get out of the way the stupid myth that he ever incited violence or encouraged rioting. He did exactly – exactly – the opposite, and I advise anybody who wants to deny this to check the transcripts before trying.
I’m curious, sig.
How was she biased?
So Trump is on stage during the GOP primaries, declares that it’s unfair that rich people pay so little in taxes, but he isn’t actually complaining that it’s a problem.
Oh, and limousine liberals who complain about taxes being too low should voluntarily pay in to fix the problem they identify, but Trump, who complains that taxes are too low, shouldn’t feel obligated to voluntarily pay in to fix the problem he identifies because…
…because Trump.
Good Lord.
I would be happy to. It was the policy of the Obama Administration to no longer look at social media profiles when vetting immigrants coming to the US. The result ended in 14 Americans murdered and 17 wounded.
Here you go…
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.
“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
This is the kind of stretch that will tear your arms and legs clean away from your torso.
In what possible universe do you think this has anything whatsoever to do with Obama’s comments on 1980s Kenyan race relations? Or with Obama’s refusal to pretend to be blind to racial disparity in general? Your own source describes the reason for the policy as fear of bad PR in the wake of the Snowden documents. This could not possibly be less relevant to the issue at hand.
Edit: this reads like parody.
I didn’t say “Find me a bad policy.”
I said “Can you identify a single instance in which Obama’s willingness to observe and understand the realities of racial disparity negatively affected the making of policy?”
You responded with – and this comes from your own source – a bad vetting protocol enacted out of post-Snowden PR concern. Which is to say, nothing whatsoever having to do with Obama’s unwillingness to participate in Right-wing racial fantasies.
The article never mentions when the policy in question began. Perhaps it had been the policy going back several administrations. It also doesn’t mention if the policy is still in place or has been revised.
1 Like
First link is from Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition refuting their necessity.
Other two are the EOs themselves
This doesn’t address what’s posted in the video.
Yes automation is a threat but increasing the percentage of low skilled labor people (the lionshare of immigrants) will make things much worse when shit hits the fan.
I didn’t watch the video.
The article states, and I tend to agree with the author, that labor participation for low-skilled male workers isn’t going to change regardless of how many legal or illegal low-skill workers are in the country.
Automation is a much greater threat than immigration as it relates to labor participation, imo.
Are you fucking kidding me dude ?
You’re going to try to sit here with a straight face, and suggest that Obama’s upbringing had nothing to do with framing foreign policy specifically around a sensitivity to Islam ?
This wasn’t bad vetting, this was an open refusal to vet properly those wanting to enter the US.
Stop it man, seriously.
He may not have incited riots but saying there is systemic racism in our police force and country in general is damaging in it’s own way. All it does is encourage young black kids to play the victim card all the way through life and that they can’t succeed because the white man keeps them down. Not only that but it propels this notion that cops are against you.That is EXTREMELY damaging so why must we look at only policy? Words from the most powerful man on the planet hit home with a lot of pea brained Americans out there.
1 Like
You might want to watch any videos in posts you respond to.
All this author is saying is automation is a bigger threat than immigration, not that immigration isn’t a threat.
Again if immigration is predominantly low skilled and low skilled jobs are disappearing, why would you continue to import low skilled labor at such high rates?
Obama sent 3 white house aides to Michael Brown’s funeral, offering his “deepest condolences.” To put that into perspective, he sent NONE to Margaret Thatcher’s, or to some of our Medal of Honor recipients. Doesn’t that action say a lot? You have to be pretty special. Maybe a hero, to get that kind of attention.
“Nothing we can say can ease the pain of the loss of a child,” he said, adding that their son’s death awakened the nation to what many young minority men experience. “Whether walking black, or driving black, they are judged by stereotypes that fuel fear, resentment and hopelessness…" Could you reasonably think that he is saying that Michael Brown was someone gunned down by police for “walking black?” He used that phrase long before any police investigation was concluded.
He used the phrase, “stains the heart of black children.” I mean, that’s poetry. If my son was engaged in a strong arm robbery and altercation with the police, would it “stain the heart of white children?” That implies that Michael Brown was someone very special. His death “stains the heart.” Wow. Is it crazy for me to assume that Obama’s words would make people feel justified in their anger?
Obama said that Brown’s death “prompted strong passions” but urged people to remember Brown, through “reflection and understanding.” That sounds very sympathetic to Brown, right? It’s not saying, “go riot” but it’s not something you’d say about a thug who was found to have been involved in a strong-arm robbery.
I don’t have the quotes in front of me, but he made remarks to the effect that blacks were justified in believing that the criminal justice system was biased against them after the grand jury refused to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. That was after the justice department’s report.
I won’t attribute the “gentle giant” descriptor to Obama, that was Sharpton who absolutely stirs this up for his own political gain. But when Obama reached out to Michael Brown’s parents, he fed the narrative that Brown was a martyr, and maybe deserved to be a hero. It legitimized that feeling. Actions speak louder.
Obama isn’t responsible for inviting speakers to the DNC, but inviting Micahel Brown’s mother to come and speak further legitimizes the idea that he was a victim of police racism, and is some kind of hero that we should all mourn.
This is post-Ferguson, but Obama came to the Dallas Police Memorial and spent a good deal of his time furthering the BLM / Democratic Black Caucus agenda. It wasn’t the time or place. If I had been the wife of one of the police officers who had been gunned down by a sniper, and then had to sit captive at his memorial and listen to the President talk about about how understanding and justifiable the anger toward police is - Paraphrasing him here but that was my impression of what MUCH of what he was saying - I would have wanted to tell him to get off the stage and let me grieve. Well, I would have wanted to give him a fat lip, but I’m not that aggressive. Any of you can go listen to the memorial. Look at the contrast between Bush’s remarks and Obama’s and judge for yourself how that would have felt if one of those police officers were your spouse.
5 Likes
There’s really no need to. There are only a handful of reasons for illegals to come here whether they’re minors or not. Low skill jobs and government assistance are about it.
The author is saying a number of things, but, as it relates to immigration, legal and illegal, people coming in is mostly irrelevant. This is because a) more illegals are leaving than coming in anyway and b) the jobs that these people work are eroding, quickly.
It isn’t a high rate by any measure. Because low skilled blue collar workers don’t want or fill these jobs anyway.
No, I’m not kidding you. Your own source claims in plain English that the policy had to do with PR concerns in the wake of Snowden. Amatuer psychoanalysis doesn’t mean anything to me; the words were explicit and adduced by you.
As for Obama’s alleged sensitivity to Islam, in what way do you think this is reflected by his being the president who has bombed the most Muslim countries in American history?