Obama plays the race card yet again

[Attic]

I don't like how our President runs things or handles issues and I think he's a horrible leader, but I thought what he said here was pretty spot on.

Non issue, and perhaps it means he's doing better if this is what the right is trying to gain traction on. Probably just slow news week though.

 

[Daverino]

@Texashiker:

 

[Vic]

Inflation during Obama's tenure has been at some of the lowest levels in modern history. The people who seem to be obsessed with inflation are simply wrong and/or nuts.

Keep in mind that inflation this low is a BAD thing, Obama's economic policies would have been better if he had been able to push this number up.

I was responding to Texashikers earlier post complaining that inflation is high.

 

[Texashiker]

I was responding to Texashikers earlier post complaining that inflation is high.

I do not remember making a comment about inflation being high.

 

[Exophase]

I do not see the article as a tradition interview.

It appears the guy was following the president around and making notes of various things obama said.

So you think that no interview questions were asked just because they weren't included in the article. Your reasoning is like a child's. I've done interviews for people before where they didn't include the interview questions and interspersed snippets of what I said among their own words. This particular author would be especially interested in doing this since he's also editorializing the hell out of it.

 

[Texashiker]

Your reasoning is like a child's.

And you are acting like a bully.

Piss off.

 

[Vic]

I do not remember making a comment about inflation being high.

You don't have to remember. This isn't a verbal conversation.

 

[Texashiker]

You don't have to remember. This isn't a verbal conversation.

So I did not actually say anything about inflation?

That is just the way you took it, is that correct?

 

[thraashman]

I would like to add to what you posted,

In the article the author claims


The older whites I have spoken to, my mom and dad, a couple of local doctors, other people in their 60 and 70s, they worked all their life and arae seeing their life work crumble before them.

First the value of their homes collapsed, and now they are earning almost no return on their life savings. All of that money is sitting in the bank not even earning more than the rate of inflation.

But for some reason older whites feel threatened by an increasingly diverse country?

Diversity has little to do with it.

What has a lot to do with it is president after president bowing down to the banks and wall street. Obama promised the people change. All we got was a change in who is screwing us.

Rather than owning up and saying some people do not like me because of my failed economic policies, he says some people do not like him because he is black. Explain that to people who worked, saved, and had planned on living off the interest of their savings. And now their savings are drawing negative interest when compared to inflation.

So I did not actually say anything about inflation?

That is just the way you took it, is that correct?

You only said something about inflation if you consider your use of and talking about inflation. Else, no, you didn't say anything about inflation.

You just gave up on paying attention in this thread didn't you?

 

[werepossum]

I don't like how our President runs things or handles issues and I think he's a horrible leader, but I thought what he said here was pretty spot on.

Non issue, and perhaps it means he's doing better if this is what the right is trying to gain traction on. Probably just slow news week though.

I have no problem with what he said, but as an explanation for his low approval numbers it's playing the race card. ElFenix did make a good point though; this may well have been Obama's answer to a question about racial politics and merely appropriated as this writer's explanation for Obama's low approval numbers.

 

[Exophase]

And you are acting like a bully.

Piss off.

Criticizing someone's reasoning on a forum is not bullying. I don't think you really know what bullying is.

 

[Texashiker]

Criticizing someone's reasoning on a forum is not bullying. I don't think you really know what bullying is.

I think you are bully.

You seem to be incapable of having a discussion without adding some kind of insult. You post your position then insult the other poster. Typical bully behavior.

You only said something about inflation if you consider your use of and talking about inflation. Else, no, you didn't say anything about inflation.

You just gave up on paying attention in this thread didn't you?

I was talking about interest rates and how they compared to inflation.

But you took it as I was talking about inflation?

 

[thraashman]

I think you are bully.

You seem to be incapable of having a discussion without adding some kind of insult. You post your position then insult the other poster. Typical bully behavior.




I was talking about interest rates and how they compared to inflation.

But you took it as I was talking about inflation?

You're the one who claimed you didn't say anything about inflation, where you certainly did say something about inflation. This whole thread has been about proving you wrong, which it seems everyone has taken part in successfully. It's been fun, but also tedious. Proving you wrong is damn near a full time job.

 

[Texashiker]

You're the one who claimed you didn't say anything about inflation, where you certainly did say something about inflation. This whole thread has been about proving you wrong, which it seems everyone has taken part in successfully. It's been fun, but also tedious. Proving you wrong is damn near a full time job.

Inflation was not the topic of the post.

What is your point anyway?

 

[Exophase]

I think you are bully.

You seem to be incapable of having a discussion without adding some kind of insult. You post your position then insult the other poster. Typical bully behavior.

Insulting someone isn't, by itself, bullying. Please, look it up in a dictionary. And your claim that I'm incapable of having a discussion without adding insults is utterly preposterous, the vast majority of my posts here don't contain anything that could be construed as an insult. Comments like this show a serious breakdown in logical reasoning that really mirrors the flaws in a lot of your arguments. And it's so bad that it's hard to really reflect on anything you say here without sounding insulting.

You keep saying that people have to resort to insulting you because they have no argument, while you're being perfectly reasonable. The real reason why people insult you is because you make terrible arguments and you repeat them over and over again and refuse to actually listen or try to process anything anyone says in response. People insult you to relieve themselves of the frustration that comes with having engaged in the little games you like to play.

Normally, when someone makes thread after thread where pretty much everyone is opposed to what they're saying you'd expect them to reflect a little on the quality of their arguments. Not you, apparently you think you've reached some kind of enlightenment and intellectual purity that no one else here manages. That's about the kind of mentality I'd expect from someone who refuses to do homework because that'd be working for free.

 

[zinfamous]

I would like to add the author of the new yorker article cities no source with the following statement,

opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy

Since there is no study or poll cited to backup that statement, it is nothing more than the authors opinion.

As if sourcing such a poll would mean anything to you. You would criticize it for not polling similar questions to people that do not feel underemployed, or that it wasn't compared to the opinions of brown Micronesian immigrants, or amputees in their 6th semester at community college.

no matter what, you would never be satisfied with any amount of data that forces some type of discomfort for you. that's a fact.

Also, the New Yorker publishes journalism--this is not an Academic journal publishing scholarly research articles. Standards of citations are different. You should be able to trust, though, that such comments are made from verifiable sources. The way you challenge this information, is dig up the source and see if it holds true. You can even write a letter to the writer and challenge the assertion.

The New Yorker publishes letters from readers every week, around page 6, I believe, from readers. Often letters will refute assertions within articles. Journalists tend to be pretty good at policing their own and calling out shenanigans within their group, between publications, as well. The New Yorker is no stranger to that and, in fact, pretty roundly excoriated one of their own staff writers for plagiarism what, 2 years ago?

 

[Texashiker]

As if sourcing such a poll would mean anything to you.

That is not true.

The way you challenge this information, is dig up the source and see if it holds true. You can even write a letter to the writer and challenge the assertion.

It is not my job to present evidence to prove / disprove the authors stance. That duty falls to the author himself.

If the author does not cite the source material, then what he is posting is nothing more than his opinion. And as opinion should not be viewed as fact.

Normally, when someone makes thread after thread where pretty much everyone is opposed to what they're saying you'd expect them to reflect a little on the quality of their arguments. Not you, apparently you think you've reached some kind of enlightenment and intellectual purity that no one else here manages. That's about the kind of mentality I'd expect from someone who refuses to do homework because that'd be working for free.

I am right and everyone here is wrong.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Vic]

I am right and everyone here is wrong.

It's as simple as that.

Cookoo for cocoa puffs right here, folks.

 

[zinfamous]

That is not true.

your posting history undeniably shows otherwise

It is not my job to present evidence to prove / disprove the authors stance. That duty falls to the author himself.

If the author does not cite the source material, then what he is posting is nothing more than his opinion. And as opinion should not be viewed as fact.

again, here you are making up rules for yourself, that are in no way standard or necessary within the accepted field that you are trying to criticize. This is journalism, it isn't a scholarly journal. If the poll doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be mentioned.

The review method has worked for journalists of all stripes for centuries now and simply because some yahoo suddenly believes that one journalist needs to operate otherwise in order to satisfy his own nipple itch, doesn't make it so.

Anyway, I'll read the article when it shows up in the mail this week and I am 95% certain that the argument in your head is not what is written on paper.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And you are acting like a bully.

Piss off.

This:

"So you think that no interview questions were asked just because they weren't included in the article. Your reasoning is like a child's. I've done interviews for people before where they didn't include the interview questions and interspersed snippets of what I said among their own words. This particular author would be especially interested in doing this since he's also editorializing the hell out of it."

is acting like a bully?!

ROFLMAO!

 

[Victorian Gray]

I have no problem with what he said, but as an explanation for his low approval numbers it's playing the race card. ElFenix did make a good point though; this may well have been Obama's answer to a question about racial politics and merely appropriated as this writer's explanation for Obama's low approval numbers.

He didn't say ALL people. He didn't say MOST people. He said SOME people. It seems like a simple, factual statement that SOME people don't like him as president based on the fact that he's an African American.

That's what most of the debate has been about, the fact the the OP misrepresented Obama's words in his first post and posed a false proposition based on that misrepresentation.

 

[Exophase]

He (Obama) also never tied what he was saying to his approval numbers at all. The fact that he followed it up by saying that there are people who are biased in his favor due to his race further goes against this.

 

[Texashiker]

again, here you are making up rules for yourself,

My life, I can make up my own rules.

He didn't say ALL people. He didn't say MOST people. He said SOME people. It seems like a simple, factual statement that SOME people don't like him as president based on the fact that he's an African American.

You are splitting hairs.

As I also mentioned, did obama say some people like/dislike him because of the nsa? What about gitmo?

No he did not.

obama avoided his policies all together and played the race card.

The "only" reason why some people do not like obama is solely because of his race? His popularity does not have a single thing to do with his policies and lies does it?

 

[Exophase]

This is just painful.

 

[werepossum]

He didn't say ALL people. He didn't say MOST people. He said SOME people. It seems like a simple, factual statement that SOME people don't like him as president based on the fact that he's an African American.

That's what most of the debate has been about, the fact the the OP misrepresented Obama's words in his first post and posed a false proposition based on that misrepresentation.

True, it's a simple, factual statement that is undeniable. However, it is equally undeniable that President Obama's race has not changed between his approval being in the 70s and his approval being in the 30s. Ergo his race is immaterial as an explanation of his declining pole numbers. To the extent Obama made this statement as explaining the decline - if, indeed, that was even one facet of the conversation at that point - he was playing the race card. If on the other hand he was responding to a question about racial politics, it's a perfectly valid statement and the article's author has done him a disservice by making him appear to have played the race card.

As an example, let me posit hypothetically that I am a white man married to a black woman who recently threw me out of the house. If asked why and I respond that some black women do not like white men, that's a perfectly true statement, but if that allows me to not mention that I was screwing her sister it's also blatantly dishonest. President Obama did not suddenly change races. Americans did not suddenly start disliking black people. The drop in his approval rating is completely due to his policies and his behavior. To believe otherwise would be to accept that another acceptable explanation for the decline would be "Antarctica is cold", because that too is a simple, factual statement.