Obama is clearly going to give black people ALL the breaks after elected. I expect nothing less than slavery reparations, and free crack for welfare mamas.
It’s all a bunch of BS. If Obama wins, he’s going to be a damn good uniter, I feel. Throughout his career he has a history of having the other side impressed with him and willing to go along with him. I think it probably has to do with the fact that he appears to care more about the result than the politics leading up to it. Throughout his career you have people saying stuff like this. Maybe he is a far-left liberal in heart, but if that is true, he’s also smart enough to take whatever he can get. I think he personally would like UHC, but realizes that any way to get the foot in the door is better than nothing.
Obama is a decent man and a skilled politician. There are some people who are fairly described as “shameful they were elected to Congress” (paging Maxine Waters and Duke Cunningham, to pick two off the top of my head). CLaims that he will “tear the country apart” are simply desperate people who don’t know how to argue – they cannot simply disagree on issues with their opponent; he must be said to represent the end of the world in fire and brimstone.
Maybe he’s planning on losing another couple of wars, trashing America’s standing in the world whilst presiding over an economic crash on a scale not seen for a century or so?
Although the general fear that a black leadership in America would treat white people as badly as previous generations treated blacks is a concern for said white people, a more realistic concern is that people making this argument have “but we’ve always done it this way” as part of their credo. Any radical change in personnel at the top, in their way of thinking, has to cause a radical change in the way leadership is done, the way the country is run, and how things work. Any such radical change would seem to them to be like pulling the motherboard out of a PC and putting in a Mac motherboard.
You would have heard this same statement if Hillary were the democratic nominee, or somebody of Asian descent, or Native American.
According to my stepmother, Obama is part of a “sleeper cell” of moslem agents who were inserted in the US during the 60’s with the intent of overthrowing the American Way of Life.
No shiite.
However, it’s going to be OK because more and more people are coming to realize that, get this, Obama isn’t even a US citizen. Apparently his birth certificate was faked and Obama is actually a citizen of the fine country of Kenya.
What these people, if they’re serious, don’t seem to get is that they’re presenting us with a choice: either they’re better at doing background checks than the NSA, or they’re a bunch of idiots. They also don’t seem to get that that is a pretty easy choice to figure out…
To answer the title question, I’d say that if he makes good on his desire to “spread the wealth around” it would certainly go far towards tearing the country apart.
I’ll answer this with my opinion. I don’t think his being elected will tear the country apart. But I do think you will see a rise in home grown terrorists, trying to tear it apart. I imagine it will be the same as every President I remember, coming in with high hopes only to find out they do not have as much power as the voters think. So some voters become pissed off that everything isn’t magically fixed and start saying “Should have been McCain or Clinton we elected” And by time his first annual address to the nation the Republican candidate will already be campaigning for 2012 to start all this shit again.
Regardless of what the wingnuts say, (after Obama wins) a few people may mumble a few sentences of discontent, then they’ll go back to worrying about paying their bills. Tear the country apart? Hardly.
Edited to add…
I’m not referring to anyone’s relatives with that wingnut statement. More a reflection on the “He’s an Arab” crowd.
I’m not sure I understand this. From here the top marginal tax rate in 1963 was 91%. I don’t recall the country being “torn apart” in any realistic since of the word (even accounting for the presidents assassination). It was 50% as recently as 1986. Why would increasing the tax burden on the top wage-earners to a rate less than either of these cause the country to “tear apart”? And what would this mechanism be? Tax revolt? Domestic terrorism?
