another example: Obama butting his nose in the Redskins faux controversy, even thoactual Native Americans don’t mind it.
And he did this with the Redskins initially long before the POTUS race.
Are you saying that you don’t think the POTUS should ever voice an opinion unless it’s pretty much the same as yours? Because that’s what you seem to be saying. Either that or that he should only voice an opinion if he knows it agrees with the majority of the country. Either way, that’s pretty fucked up, dude.
That’s an example of Obama giving an opinion that you disagree with. It’s not divisive because most people don’t care. It’d be like saying “Obama’s preference for broccoli is divisive because most people don’t like broccoli”… Most people may not like broccoli, but they also don’t care if Obama does or not.
I think a President should stay away from issues that are morality issues unless a large group of people’s actual rights, not feelings of a few activists, are being hurt, or unpatriotic ideas being spread (like in many far-left PC universities). One of the reasons I did not like Bush was butting into Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, etc. Also, all facts should be known if there is such a potential issue (like Zimmerman).
And yes, the opinion of the majority DOES matter. Minority rights, but majority/plurality rules.
The Country was founded on the concept of INDIVIDUAL rights, not victim groups rights.
If people truly want equal rights and freedoms, then they would be willing to take the bad rights/freedoms along with the good rights/freedoms.
Anything can be divisive if people are determined to be outraged about it, and I think as a country we’re far more thin-skinned than we were even in 1990. Whether this is a reasonable approach to life and whether this makes Obama (or in this case Bush Sr) inherently “divisive” is left as an exercise for the reader.
I completely disagree with your forst sentence.
Regarding your second sentence, Bush had every right to speak on the issue of Schiavo. The actions he took were wrong, in my opinion, but I blame him for being wrong, not for speaking on a controversial or devicive issue.
Do you have any examples of Obama saying something you agree with but think he should have kept quiet because it was a controversial subject? Otherwise, as others have pointed out, this thread is simply a list of things you and the president disagree on.
The majority can be, and often is, wrong. It is quite possible for a present to be out in front on an issue, and bring the country around to where it should be going – as opposed to shutting up and letting an egregious injustice slide just because the majority, as of this moment, thinks it’s swell.
So basically, you dislike the Bully Pulpit and want to elect Presidents who follow rather than lead. Good to know.
Well, it ain’t traditional, is it, for a president to keep silent on such issues?
I like the Bully Pulpit only when its used to protect/reinforce rights, not merely feelings. It’s also not a place to express uninformed opinions (re Zimmerman/Martin).
Which was the purpose of his statements about trans rights. I’ll note that “feelings” about black people and Civil Rights in the 60s were pretty “divisive”, if that means that a lot of people disagreed.
That you disagree with it doesn’t make anything he said uninformed. If you think he stated something factually inaccurate, then please cite and provide the exact quote, not your interpretation (which so far bats about .000), which is factually inaccurate.
Blacks rights to do things were being denied. The “rights” movements for transgenders are, never were, and never will be anything similar to the black civil rights movement, ever.
his statement implied Zimmerman was malevolent and guilty, when the trial hadn’t even begun at that point. Clinton stayed quiet on OJ; Obama shoulda stayed quiet on Zimmerman.
Other than the employment discrimination, housing discrimination, discrimination in public accommodations, physical violence, and being forced into the role society has determined for them, you’re right; no similarities at all.
Perhaps you are misremembering; here is the statement:
“Obviously this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. When I think about this boy I think about my own kids and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.
I’m glad that not only the Justice Department is looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place.
I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened. That means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
Please point out where Obama implies that Zimmerman was malevolent and/or guilty. Thanks in advance.
Says you, who has shown no understanding of trans people, and who has posted many horrible, insulting, and bigoted things about trans people. I’ll trust that you are as accurate about trans issues as George Wallace was about the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.
Please cite and quote, considering how awful you’ve been at interpreting what Obama has meant or “implied”.
You’re forgetting that DerekMichaels00 believes transgenderism to be a relatively recent creation of the far-left rather than something one is born with, and as such it is an artificial construct rather than a fundamental part of one’s being. As such, naturally he would deny that such people and their “affectation” are worthy of the same civil rights as others.
In this view he’s pretty much going against the entire scientific consensus and the personal views of a very large number of transgendered people, but it is his view and he certainly owns it.
What is feeding Trump is that the Republican Party has, for many years, appealed to a large segment of white working class voters with appeals to racism, xenophobia, and anti-gay/anti-abortion (“family values”) sentiments while not doing anything whatsoever to cater to these folks’ economic interests. It is natural therefore that someone could come along with a slightly more populist economic message but the same racism, xenophobia, and “family values” and win enough of them away to get the Republican nomination.
However, that does not mean that the Democrats should try to cater to such people to win (particularly when there is no evidence that they even need to in order to win).
You might call this smugness but most of the rest of us call it basic decency.
As others have noted above, you’re 0 for 2 here. I assume you’ll be swinging for the fences on the third pitch.
I think that he’s using the Trump strategy here; Tell some outrageous stories, and then when called on them, simply hand-wave them away, or refuse to answer. It’s quite similar actually - ie, Trumps story about all those cheering Muslims on 9/11.
[QUOTE=Obama]
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
[/QUOTE]
There you go. If that doesn’t sound like its giving Zimmerman a burden of guilt it shouldn’t be, or exonerating Trayvon, as if he was just another victim of the White Oppression Machine (even tho Zimmerman wasn’t white).