DescentBB

President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.

So the people who used to approve of him haven't changed their mind because of anything he has done. They have changed their mind because racism overcame their character.

Way to lead! And what a role model! Yay us!

You expected different?

The left (including certain forum members) has been spouting those DNC talking points for a couple of years now.

Notice they only care about voters.

You guys need to read stuff from some of the leftie pundits some time. Even they are seeing the shine fading from the Obama Presidency.

So what you're saying is that the president is being viewed more and more as a failure by both sides.
But he is choosing to make it about race instead.

Will Robinson wrote:

President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.

So the people who used to approve of him haven't changed their mind because of anything he has done. They have changed their mind because racism overcame their character.

Way to lead! And what a role model! Yay us!

As it turns out, the president never said that. Not even close. But all of you knew this already because you actually read the article instead of engaging in a circle-jerk based on third-party information that is likely made up to either A) sell magazines or B) create more buzz for the anti-Obama crowd. While I'm at it, here is my favorite quote from the article and probably one of your favorites too since you also read it:

the m-f'ing pres wrote:“This is where sometimes progressives get frustrated with me,” he said, “because I actually think there was a legitimate critique of the welfare state getting bloated, and relying too much on command and control, top-down government programs to address it back in the seventies. It’s also why it’s ironic when I’m accused of being this raging socialist who wants to amass more and more power for their own government..."

Strangely, after being indifferent to the president for the last year I respect him more after reading this article, even though it doesn't paint him in a particularly good light. He's got some really great thoughts. Big, thorough, balanced and reasonable thoughts. The article is as insightful as it is long.

Actually I thought he did say it because of this article

And I didn't doubt it was legit because I know he has said almost the exact same thing before numerous times...I've seen the video....and his wife has said it before, and lots of liberals here have said it before, and liberals on TV over the last 5 years have said it.....I'm pretty sure it was tattooed on his last campaign managers forehead too....

The only thing new is using it to specifically deflect recent polling.

But if he didn't say it I'm open to be corrected, but I'd like something more than what you have offered if I'm going to believe I've been fooled.

Will Robinson wrote:But if he didn't say it I'm open to be corrected, but I'd like something more than what you have offered if I'm going to believe I've been fooled.

Ok, this is a good opportunity for you to practice some critical thinking skills. Here, I'll walk you through it....

Let's say you see an article written about another article and the headline emphasizes racism. What are the first things that should cross your mind? I said should, because the first thing most people do is use information they see to reinforce their beliefs as true (confirmation bias), even if the things they read are incorrect.

The first step is to is recognize that media outlets design their content to draw attention with catchy headlines so they can make money from advertising dollars. The more provocative the headline the better. Putting a President's name next to the word racism creates a headline supercharged with emotion, regardless if the president is black or white. So when you come across emotionally charged content you need to put on your skeptics glasses extra-firmly.

The second thing you should do is remember that an article about an article is automatically third hand information. We all know from the telephone game why it is important to go to the original source for information whenever possible. How do we know this report is accurate? And why do we have to read this article when we can read the original?

After realizing this you should immediately find the source and, using your critical thinking skills, analyze the content of the original to determine if the claims are true -- not post about third hand information on a forum which now becomes fourth hand information (and so forth). Even while reading from the original source you should be skeptical and ask "does the original suffer from the same problems as the source that brought me here? Is the headline inflammatory? What types of bias are in the article?" From this angle you are in a good position to make a better judgment about information you encounter... but it takes practice to remember these steps!

So, now that you have finally read the original -- er, you HAVE read the original, right? -- you can see that the President made no such claim as "racial tensions have softened my popularity." What you would see in the article is the author making his own, questionable claims about the racial climate of the USA, then selectively interjecting a quote from the President that amounts to "some people don't like me because I'm black, and others might support me because I am black." Well golly, that's absolutely true what the President said! I can actually name a few people I know personally who don't want a "ni66er" president and others who think a younger black man's perspective is a nice change from all the "old-white guys."

Hopefully through this little instruction you now see the benefit of applying critical thinking to the things you read!

Vision, wouldn't it of been easier just to link the correct statement?

He's passive-aggressive Woodchip.

tunnelcat wrote:You guys need to read stuff from some of the leftie pundits some time. Even they are seeing the shine fading from the Obama Presidency.

You all are missing the whole appeal of the Obama presidency. The 'right' and the 'left'(by which I view as the extremes of both types) have been down on him from the get-go. That is fine with most of us in the middle. Believe it or not.

edit--reading Vision's critique shows that Vision, too, sees what I do. A man willing to think(what a change from predecessor) about big ideas about government. That those ideas upset the far right and far left shows me that maybe those ideas are sound.

Well it would seem with a 36% approval rating most of the rest of the country are down on him also.

people tend to get that way when you repeatedly lie to them.

Men who are willing to think have been a problem throughout history. It's the ambition and the loyalties that count. I.E. Ambition should be for the interests of the people/country, and loyalties should be to the principles our country was founded upon. Ron Paul's ideas upset the Far Left and the Far Right too, does that show you something? Obama isn't special just because he doesn't fit into some radical Leftist mold that you "middle" liberals like to try to use to sell him...

A couple problems there vision.
First, it isn't 'confirmation bias' if what is confirmed is truth,reality,the stated position of the subject that you have witnessed in first person....

Second, the author of the original article is bleeding heart liberal and his publication leans way over there with him. Yet even an ally like that can't resist to point toward Obama's propensity for playing the race card.

So you need to plug those factors into your formula. And why not link the original if it is so exculpatory?

The author frames the drop in polls this way:

The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama’s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters.

He doesn't cite racism as the cause for the decline but when he offers Obama's take on the drop he does play the race card using Obama's own words!

Is the author trying to fool us into thinking that is Obama's take on it?!? To make us think race is the reason in Obama's mind when it really wasn't?
I don't think so since he seems to love the guy! And I don't think so because we have all heard Obama play that card many times in the same context. Confirmation...no bias.

So I take it he is telling us Obama's perspective. More likely sugar coating Obama's take by using a more generic response than what he actually responded with! That certainly fits with the way he spun many other topics in the lovefest.
The original article is a frikken excuse manifesto and yet when the author brings up the polls he chooses to cite Obama's oft used race card. His choice and he's a friendly author. You connect the dots.....

Thinking is highly overrated…I do that all day long…what we need is action and leadership, which I see very little of, mostly on the economy.

And from what I read in the “original” article, what we have here is a paraphrase, and people should understand how to interpret such things.

Spidey wrote:Thinking is highly overrated…

well, that certainly explains some things....

How so Spidey? GDP levels have finally returned to around the 2008 levels, what metric shall we use then to make you feel better?

Jobs

Levels back to 2008, well that’s encouraging…what…we only lost like 6 years of growth…

No biggie…

Let me know when we get back to where we should be.

woodchip wrote:Vision, wouldn't it of been easier just to link the correct statement?

Will Robinson wrote:And why not link the original if it is so exculpatory?

I actually did link to the original in my first post, but it is hidden as an Easter Egg (left for my own reference). I didn't make it obvious because wanted to illustrate the point that readers such as yourself need to seek information instead of being spoon fed everything, which by the looks of things you're getting feed a lot of crap in your filter-bubble (thus the existence of this thread).

Will Robinson wrote:The author frames the drop in polls this way...He doesn't cite racism as the cause for the decline but when he offers Obama's take on the drop he does play the race card using Obama's own words!

I emboldened the critical pronoun in your statement. The "he" who drops the race card is the author, not Obama. The quote from Obama is benign and simply states a fact: some people dislike him because of race and other like him because he is black. At no point does the president say anything close to "my polls are slipping because people are becoming more racist," which is what the Bloomberg article says. Here, take a look: "Obama Says Racial Animus Blunts Approval, New Yorker Reports" Notice anything? The headline is completely false. Nowhere in the article does Obama say race blunts his approval.

Will Robinson wrote:Is the author trying to fool us into thinking that is Obama's take on it?!?

Yes! Maybe not the author, but perhaps the editor. Who knows? That sort of thing sells advertising space. This very clever wording caused dozens of news outlets to cite it and countless sheep to repost on social media. All this turns into revenue. But of course, you already know this because it is the first thing I mentioned in my tutorial! Hurray learning! \o/

Jobless rate continues to go down, albeit slower than anyone would want and I completely agree with that. Can't sugar-coat it for you, the economy was in a downward spiral in 2008 and it took five years to get back the measurable GDP. Pillage the man all you want, but saying the President has no leadership on the economy is just blind to reality.

I do like, however, that you're complaining that it's just as 2008 levels. 16 trillion dollar economy takes awhile to fix, considering what the previous guy did to it for eight years.

INB4: "could have rebounded fully in a year if blackie didn't force his socialism on us."

Unemployment is falling because people are leaving the workforce in droves.

Nice. The whole "this or that shows leadership" without being able to point to any leadership as such is highly doubtful in my mind. You're all giving him a pass. Who is to say we should be here, or what here says about the guy riding in the highest chair while everyone is working their ass off trying to turn their corner of the economy around? I'd like to know why our currency continues to be devalued, with another, worse, crash looming on the horizon. Jobs being sent overseas has not changed. ... No one is addressing what is actually causing the problems we're all aware of, they're just managing public opinion while fighting over which side of the slide we're going to sit on as they tear out pages from the constitution to build a parachute to control the speed of our descent into hell when we finally do reach the end. Leadership is making a determination to get off the slide. No one is making decisions to preserve our way of life. Everyone wants to change our way of life, the ignorant accepting that radical change is inevitable.

vision wrote:...

Will Robinson wrote:The author frames the drop in polls this way...He doesn't cite racism as the cause for the decline but when he offers Obama's take on the drop he does play the race card using Obama's own words!

I emboldened the critical pronoun in your statement. The "he" who drops the race card is the author, not Obama. The quote from Obama is benign and simply states a fact: some people dislike him because of race and other like him because he is black. At no point does the president say anything close to "my polls are slipping because people are becoming more racist," which is what the Bloomberg article says. Here, take a look: "Obama Says Racial Animus Blunts Approval, New Yorker Reports" Notice anything? The headline is completely false. Nowhere in the article does Obama say race blunts his approval.

You are just restating what I said in my last post and avoiding the point.

If Obama, his wife, all his team and so many outspoken members of the media weren't on the record for constantly downplaying any criticism of him as being racist in motive in blatant deflection of substantive opposition then I wouldn't have so easily accepted the headline as relevant. I'd have to consider your writing it off as nothing but a bit of marketing sensationalism. But that doesn't jibe with reality.

I think your explanation is actually a bit of bias of your own whether you recognize it or not.

If I had read the original article and realized the context I wouldn't have titled my post the same way but I don't believe for a minute Obama doesn't cite racism as a reason he has lower poll numbers.
I've heard him use that excuse too many times, far too many times to give your explanation any weight.

Set the headline aside for a moment, there is a reason the author wrote what he did. He could have attributed any number of non-race card reactions to Obama over the poll numbers. But he led with the race card reaction for a reason! He offered no other reason.
And he isn't a rightwinger blogger....that was a random act of journalism by a lefty...a Freudian slip of sorts.

Spidey wrote:Jobs

Levels back to 2008, well that’s encouraging…what…we only lost like 6 years of growth…

No biggie…

the only way you get those jobs back is to RADICALLY revamp the entire economic design model of the past 30 years. The ONLY WAY.

Let me know when we get back to where we should be.

now, who said we 'should be'??? Look, speaking solely as an investor, the current level of US employment is making me money. There is utterly NO incentive to worry about the state of the US economy, say, 20 years from now, because the game isn't played for long-term payoffs. Nosirree, Bob! So long as taxes on investment income are low, stock prices are driven by speculation over short term performance, and income taxes are at such low levels as to almost encourage a handful of bloated salaries managing businesses with underpaid workers or, more often, overseas workers, there is nothing that Obama or anyone can do to get back to previous employment levels. Add to that mix a steadily growing pool of potential workers, and REAL unemployment(not that hokey number the govt always gives you) is going to RISE steadily. Once again, nothing a President can do, unless you can get all of Congress to go along with it.

Will Robinson wrote:If I had read the original article and realized the context I wouldn't have titled my post the same way but I don't believe for a minute Obama doesn't cite racism as a reason he has lower poll numbers.

You don't see it do you? This is an instance where you are being led around by the nose by false, inflammatory media blurbs and you are perfectly content to ride the waves because it reinforces what you want to believe. Sure, maybe Obama has said off-color stuff about race in the past, but not in this article, not by a longshot. I'm just pointing out this thread is a circle-jerk where facts are put aside to stoke each other's unreasonable hate for a man doing what is currently the hardest job in the world.

Will Robinson wrote:And he isn't a rightwinger blogger....that was a random act of journalism by a lefty...a Freudian slip of sorts.

You didn't read the whole article, which obvious. It is rather unforgiving in spots. Also, major magazines like this don't have random Freudian slips. Teams of editors scrutinize articles until they are fully crafted works, which means things that a clear are deliberately clear and things that are vague are deliberately vague.

callmeslick wrote:Once again, nothing a President can do, unless you can get all of Congress to go along with it.

Quiet slick, don't remind the haters we have three branches of government that run our country. It's much easier to hate the guy who looks different.

The more you dorks talk about hating the president, the more it looks like a good idea.

And so what…so what if some people do hate the president…what do you want a crying towel…boo hoo, they hate my precious president.

LOL…get over it.

Spidey wrote:…boo hoo, they hate our precious president.

Fixed for you. It just amazes me that literally, every day, someone on this board starts some sort of anti-president/anti-governemnt thread. Some of it is ridiculous, like everything TB posts, but this thread is about the same level of stupidity. It looks like the people here suffer from some sort of obsessive disorder with their fixation on the black commie anti-christ etc...

It has been mentioned here we can't get anything done unless we have an informed electorate. But you actually need to go one step further. Progress is equally inhibited by the emotional climate of the country. It doesn't matter what you know if you can't overcome your emotions. How can people think clearly when they are constantly wound up with negativity? So yeah, the hate is actually a problem. It makes complicated issues impossible to dissect and sort out. Everything gets reduced to misapplied buzzwords like "socialism."

The whole point of my participation in this thread is to point out it should have never been made. Will got caught up in some negative emotions and spread them all over the net (and he did so in a horribly Pavlovian way, completely at the mercy of clever media whose agenda is to increase ad revenue. I mean seriously, how is 500 words about another article, most of it quotes, considered "news?"). Where is the benefit of starting yet another racism themed thread on this forum? It's not like hating the President more is going to make him go away, and he can't get re-elected, so how is this improving our condition?

vision wrote: Quiet slick, don't remind the haters we have three branches of government that run our country. It's much easier to hate the guy who looks different.

He doesn't look any different to me. Just another socialist that wants to ruin this country.

Well my point was actually that I don't hate Obama, but get accused of it anyway.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If I had read the original article and realized the context I wouldn't have titled my post the same way but I don't believe for a minute Obama doesn't cite racism as a reason he has lower poll numbers.

You don't see it do you? This is an instance where you are being led around by the nose by false, inflammatory media blurbs and you are perfectly content to ride the waves because it reinforces what you want to believe. Sure, maybe Obama has said off-color stuff about race in the past, but not in this article, not by a longshot. I'm just pointing out this thread is a circle-jerk where facts are put aside to stoke each other's unreasonable hate for a man doing what is currently the hardest job in the world.

No. You are wrong.
I see what you mean. I/we assumed, based on the headline, that he recently tried to blame his dropping poll numbers on racist intent, deflecting any substantive motive instead.

I totally get it, that I believed what the headline implied. That this was a recent use of that tactic. etc.

However, the reason I, and probably others, went with that perception IS BECAUSE HE DOES THIS OFTEN.
You are trying to dance past that distinction.

You have implied the others in this thread jumped on the bandwagon out of hate for him as a person. I'm telling you it is much more likely they too recognize the race card excuse as Obama's typical play.

Your decision to assign hatred to their motive instead of their having substantive dislike for the excuse that racist are at work is every bit as much an indication of YOUR prejudice as any you think you have identified in them/us!

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And he isn't a rightwinger blogger....that was a random act of journalism by a lefty...a Freudian slip of sorts.

You didn't read the whole article, which obvious.

You are wrong, which calls into question your ability to recognize the obvious.

vision wrote:It is rather unforgiving in spots. Also, major magazines like this don't have random Freudian slips. Teams of editors scrutinize articles until they are fully crafted works, which means things that a clear are deliberately clear and things that are vague are deliberately vague.

And here you totally affirm my other point. That it was no mistake that the author introduced the condition of Obama dropping so low in the polls and then describing Obama's perception to those conditions by citing his race card excuse! (A Freudean slip is not an accident)
Like you said, lots of editors....deliberately stated. There was nothing vague about that point. It sounds like you are trying to make it vague....

With all that journalism muscle you allude to they could have discussed Obamas policy, his opponents objections to it....ACA, Immigration, Jobs, etc
Yet they didn't cite any disagreement over policy being at the heart of how Obama see's the cause for his dropping numbers. The very first thing they put in 'print' to assign to Obamas perception of the polls was the 'racist bogeyman'! Quite deliberate. Journalism 101 lead with the main point....put the filler down below the fold. On the topic of the reason the polls went down they led by quoting him ( and the part I highlighted in bold destroys any illusion of objectivity he was trying to create. He just can't help himself):

our community agitator in chief wrote:“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” The latter group has been less in evidence of late.

And they followed with his suggesting even legitimate substantive objections are intertwined in old racist motives!

our community agitator in chief wrote:“There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it’s hard to disentangle those issues,” he went on. “You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it’s distant, that it’s bureaucratic, that it’s not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what’s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states’ rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There’s a pretty long history there. And so I think it’s important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there’s some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans.

He tries to sugar coat it but to have that as his default perspective....that one has to look for the racist content in all objections to a black president and try to measure it correctly...isn't as reasonable as it is a backhanded slap to the face of objectivity. When your only tool is a race card every problem is caused by a racist.

vision wrote: It looks like the people here suffer from some sort of obsessive disorder with their fixation on the black commie anti-christ etc...

Funny how only you mention the Presidents skin color. You racist?

You know, to be fair to Obama, as a black man holding the highest office in the country he must be keenly aware of the racism that is out there. However, I hold him as a "leader" responsible to rise above that. If you remember back to the church that he sat in for so many years, you might get a clue as to why he hasn't... I'd like to know what purpose it serves for the president to point out that racism plays a part in the poles. With all due respect, No ★■◆●, Mr. President. What's you're point? The only legitimate purpose, in fact, I think, is to broad-brush and illegitimize the opposition. I could respect talk about racism from a president in his position if the subject were racism, but when the subject is poles then it's disingenuous if you ask me.

Will Robinson wrote:When your only tool is a race card every problem is caused by a racist.

Speaking of racists, isn't this like the 5th race thread you have started in the last year? Maybe that's Obama's only tool, but it also seems to be a major preoccupation with you too. Perhaps your racism is Freudian? Seems reasonable. In fact, this entire thread illustrates the point you claim Obama is making -- you can't just leave the race thing alone. You bring it up all the time. Thank you for proving the President right! Good job Will, you get a gold star today!

WAIT. So a white man brings up race and he gets labeled a racist by you. And a 1/2 black man brings up race and you give him a free pass. Hrm

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:When your only tool is a race card every problem is caused by a racist.

Speaking of racists, isn't this like the 5th race thread you have started in the last year? Maybe that's Obama's only tool, but it also seems to be a major preoccupation with you too. Perhaps your racism is Freudian? Seems reasonable. In fact, this entire thread illustrates the point you claim Obama is making -- you can't just leave the race thing alone. You bring it up all the time. Thank you for proving the President right! Good job Will, you get a gold star today!

You should investigate the definition of "racism" because if, in your mind, there is any actual logic behind your accusation that I'm a racist for simply talking about the dynamics of race relations, or for taking an interest in our Presidents continuous exploitation of people's sensitivities to such a powerful subject then you clearly don't even know what the word means!

I'd love for you to quote any assertion I've made that supports your accusation that I'm a racist. But you first must learn and then use the actual definition of the word racist when you do it. And the same for bigot.

Failing that, which I'm confident you will, you should return the Presidents favorite tool because you have just demonstrated how truly pathetic one can look trying to wield it as a weapon when they don't know what it is.

Yes, you guys are very skilled at "talking about the dynamics of race relations" with a topic titled "The racists ate my homework" which links to a media trap designed to excite people who have racial preoccupations. It's like I'm in a room full of Martin Luther King Jrs (b-day shout out!). I'm overwhelmed by the subtle, nuanced talk of race and the presidency coming from Will and The Gang (not to be confused with Kool & The Gang, who are actually cool). Well gosh, I better just step out and let the intellectual powerhouses here mash it up over such questions as "what difference does it make if the president is ever proven to be racist when he shares the responsibility of governance with literally hundreds of other people from all races who may or not be racist themselves governing a massive population with a history of racial unrest during a time when the problems of race are small compared to the economy and the heath and wellness of an increasingly financially embattled middle and lower class" and "how can we overcome problems of race when people of all levels of class and responsibility perpetuate stereotypes regardless of their own racial identity, if they have one at all since a growing percentage of the population comes from mixed race households, and if we can't overcome race, is it sufficient to simply ensure we are free of institutionalized racism?"

I'll come back in a day or so and read how you guys solved these problems, though I probably won't understand them because, you know, I'm massively out-classed by the intelligent discussions here.

Also, Obama is a ni66er.

vision wrote:

Also, Obama is a ni66er.

No, he is a Knee-grow

Also, Obama is a ni66er.

Your words, not ours

vision wrote:...
"what difference does it make if the president is ever proven to be racist when he shares the responsibility of governance with literally hundreds of other people from all races who may or not be racist themselves governing a massive population with a history of racial unrest during a time when the problems of race are small compared to the economy and the heath and wellness of an increasingly financially embattled middle and lower class"

It seems you are saying, due to bigger problems and his not being the only one with responsibility to fix them, it doesn't really matter if Obama is a racist. An allegation I never made by the way...I indict him for exploiting people's emotional investment in racial strife for his own personal gain...but I have no clue if he is genuinely anything, let alone racist.

To your assertion my response is, it makes a difference in the same way it makes a difference if your priest really believes in god or merely enjoys scaring the congregation with the specter of hell and damnation to keep the pews full and collection plates overflowing.

Of course if you care more about the health of the church than that of the congregation you might make excuses for him. You might even call people who criticize him 'blasphemers' or other words you don't understand....

vision wrote:"how can we overcome problems of race when people of all levels of class and responsibility perpetuate stereotypes regardless of their own racial identity, if they have one at all since a growing percentage of the population comes from mixed race households, and if we can't overcome race, is it sufficient to simply ensure we are free of institutionalized racism?"

Part 1- you don't look to race baiting agitators for leadership on the solutions.
Part 2- at the Federal level addressing institutional racism is the primary goal and the limit of its mandate.