Jump to content

Can someone explain this to me?


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

And the posts/comments under it accuse Michelle Obama of being a shemale. Why do the far right weirdos have such a hard time letting things go?

Let you in on a little secret. It's not a right or left thing. Tall black women especially those that aren't waif thin get that unfortunately. My mother was 5' 9" and got that. I got into a fight over it in middle school. Then she whooped my butt for getting into a fight over something so stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanation is that whomever made this thought racism didn't exist pre Obama, and that they stirred up a non-existant racial bias for CONSPIRACY REASONS.

Welcome to my family from GA!

 

And the posts/comments under it accuse Michelle Obama of being a shemale. Why do the far right weirdos have such a hard time letting things go?

Let you in on a little secret. It's not a right or left thing. Tall black women especially those that aren't waif thin get that unfortunately. My mother was 5' 9" and got that. I got into a fight over it in middle school. Then she whooped my butt for getting into a fight over something so stupid.

 

I hope you kicked that kids ass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because black people weren't a problem until one of the had the audacity to become the most powerful person in the country, and now suddenly there's a very real possibility that they might want more, holy shit, gotta stomp that right down in case anything crazy like actual representation happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've addressed it before. Obama accelerated a trend of encouraging people to vote based on the tribe. It really started under Bush 43 though with the illegal immigration fight of 2005-2006. However, Obama unabashedly made racial (plus gender and sexual orientation) tribalism the centerpiece of the Democrat party's election strategy.

 

Trump then jumped on board and made giving whites a tribal mentality into an Republican election strategy.

 

And so our politics become simplified where both parties, instead of trying to persuade you on policy issues, simply want you to be aware of whichever tribe is most important to you as you cast your ballot.

 

It was one of Obama's most terrible failures as a president and a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The explanation is that whomever made this thought racism didn't exist pre Obama, and that they stirred up a non-existant racial bias for CONSPIRACY REASONS.

I've addressed it before. Obama accelerated a trend of encouraging people to vote based on the tribe. It really started under Bush 43 though with the illegal immigration fight of 2005-2006. However, Obama unabashedly made racial (plus gender and sexual orientation) tribalism the centerpiece of the Democrat party's election strategy.

 

Trump then jumped on board and made giving whites a tribal mentality into an Republican election strategy.

 

And so our politics become simplified where both parties, instead of trying to persuade you on policy issues, simply want you to be aware of whichever tribe is most important to you as you cast your ballot.

 

It was one of Obama's most terrible failures as a president and a person.

See?

 

How dare the first minority President encourage people the giver must has historically marginalized to rise up and participate in civics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT

I forget how pointless and ultimately day ruining getting into it with you guys is, so I'm not going to engage.

I'll just say that white privilege has been around forever, and anyone who thinks otherwise is somehow bothered and thinks that acknowledging it is some form of white guilt.

If you can look at slavery and everything up until the civil rights movement and not get American culture favors white people, you're an idiot.

Being aware of this, and not being a racist knob is all that's being asked of anyone. There's nothing wrong with that

Being Pro-black doesn't mean it's anti-white. Conservatives struggle with this notion.

As for Obama-- he invigorated his base-- which EVERY politician does. To call it tribalism because it's minority led is pretty sketchy. It's no different than the Bushes getting the Christian right amped up, The Clintons being a liberal wet dream, or Trump making white supremacists feel like it's safe to make noise.

That's politics, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As for Obama-- he invigorated his base-- which EVERY politician does. To call it tribalism because it's minority led is pretty sketchy.

I didn't call it tribalism because it's minority. I said it was the same as what Trump did from the other side. He didn't just "invigorate his base", the Democrat strategy, clearly laid out and bragged about, was to consolidate voters into distinct groups, isolate them to as high a degree as possible, and appeal to them on those terms. This strategy could be seen on full display all the way through the first few hours of election night coverage in 2016 when all the talk was about demographics. It was a marked contrast to Obama's debut on the national stage where he proclaimed, "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

 

Furthermore, I also pointed out that it really started under Bush (at least in its current incarnation). The Rovian strategy of numbers and demographics as a political strategy led to a miscalculation about the Latino vote where they actively tried to make them think of their tribe as well. Their success backfired and created, for the first time, a higher cohesion within the Latino community as a voting bloc. 15 years ago, Latinos were a fairly divergent group of voters, many of which considered themselves part of the mainstream and in the space of a few years, this became much less true.

 

Now Rove had done similar things before. He and Ken Mehlman were numbers guys and all about focusing messages on certain communities. He'd certainly attempted to consolidate the Christian right along with suburbs and exurbs and such. However, that was a case of trying to unite people with common values for the most part. It was also inclusive across races (courting traditionally Catholic Latinos and even the black culture, which is considerably more socially conservative than their voting record would indicate), though gay marriage was one of the central cultural themes, so... Either way, it was much more akin to the usual "invigorate the base".

 

 

 

I forget how pointless and ultimately day ruining getting into it with you guys is, so I'm not going to engage.

 

It's probably for the best.

 

Stated with sincerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama was pro-black in the same sense that Trump is pro-white.

 

What a farce.

 

The color that matters in American politics is $green$ and how much of it you have. Period.

 

While I don't think they were personally responsible for it, Obama and Hillary oversaw the transformation of the democratic party, in addition to the establishment of a safe and nerfed form of progressivism. One that frames power and privilege entirely in terms of race and gender. Who benefits from that, I wonder? The black kid in the ghetto? The single mother on food stamps?

 

Guess again, sunshine!

 

A form of progressivism wherein six digit salary earning humanities profs and Huffpost bloggers tell unemployed white male construction workers to check their privilege. A form of progressivism wherein trolls in places like 4chan are held up as the greatest threat to democracy and freedom and corporate media outlets like the New York Times are cast as part of the "resistance." A form of progressivism that worries about Halloween costumes and old jazz era Christmas songs being "problematic" while the deep state and the military industrial complex go unscrutinized. Are praised even, since the evil orange man said bad things about them at some point (with all of the sincerity you'd expect from Trump - ha ha).

 

Quite a remarkable feat, I must say. You'd have to go back to Nixon's southern strategy, and the conservative ruse of convincing white male working class voters that their real enemies are minorities and women demanding equal rights, to find something comparable to it. Wall Street and the Pentagon are your friends, the conservatives told the white and/or male middle and working classes. It's those uppity blacks who are your real enemies. My only question regarding how corporate democrats pulled the exact same scam on minorities and women is what took them so long?

 

So again, who benefits? Who benefited from Obama? The same people who benefited under Bush, under Clinton, under Bush Sr. and under Reagan. I'm sure we can all guess who they are. It wasn't black people, that's for damn sure. But their self appointed democratic centralist vanguard in academia and mainstream media did get to demand trigger warnings and safe spaces for things they found offensive, so progress, right? And meanwhile, the GOP was able to cast this as representative of "leftism" and the political mileage they gain from it goes along way towards getting deregulators and top 1% of 1% tax cutters elected to public office.

 

So again, who benefits?

 

Obama. The greatest conservative president the US ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Obama was pro-black in the same sense that Trump is pro-white.

 

 

Funny, I don't recall Obama quoting or retweeting racist rants from black supremacists like Trump did with white supremacists during the 2016 campaign, or whipping up his base with unrestricted open borders the same way Trump proclaimed the border is shut down and essentially ran on the mantra that he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accusation that Trump targeted white sumpremacists always cracks me up. Like those people were ever gonna vote Democrat anyway.

 

If any of those folks vote they vote Republican. If he “targeted” them by pointing out that illegal immigration is illegal that’s even funnier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

What cracks me up are those who blindly support Trump, and white knight for him in every single thread. The guy is a disaster for the US, whether you are an R or a D. It ain't about party for me. The guy is a nut job, pure and simple. Also, whether or not Trump targeted white supremacists is not the point. The fact he quoted them is. Racist or uninformed buffoon, take your pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What cracks me up are those who blindly support Trump, and white knight for him in every single thread. The guy is a disaster for the US, whether you are an R or a D. It ain't about party for me. The guy is a nut job, pure and simple. Also, whether or not Trump targeted white supremacists is not the point. The fact he quoted them is. Racist or uninformed buffoon, take your pick.

Exactly. It’s not about votes, it’s about the message it sends. All these racist asshats were rightfully deplatformed by society, and Trump has made them feel safe and welcome to rise up and spread hate.

 

And by hate I don’t mean angry protesting or myopic politics, I mean being a fascist and/or pro genocide. That’s not rhetoric that has anynplace. We fought a whole war making that abundantly clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.