He said that his imaginary son would look like Martin. Would he say that if Martin were white? No he would not. So he very clearly implied his imaginary son’s race in order to connect with the parents or with that side of the argument? I really don’t know.
Also he doesn’t know all the facts so he should have just said that justice must be done, proper investigation etc. The unarmed teenager may have been trying to beat someone to death. We will hopefully find out soon but thus far we do not know what happened or if there was any racial motivation. If this boy was gunned down for no other reason than his being black and male then lets address it then, not now when we don’t know what happened.
Something I spend next to no time thinking about. The President seems more obsessed about if than me seeing as he likes to make up imaginary children. Moreover all the protectors seem a lot more focused on it despite them not knowing all the facts one way or another.
And my comment was a tongue in cheek response to Madmonk as you’ll see I quoted him.
I’m following the other thread in this forum about actual killing/murder and really it all seems very up in the air. Also I did note that creating an imaginary child seems a bit self absorbed to me.
You’re the one who is of the opinion that the president is only half black. Having seen a photo of his maternal grandfather, I can say with certainty that the president looks very much like some of his white family members.
So, uh, that’s just your assumption.
So he implied something, but he didn’t say it. You still haven’t made any argument as to why he shouldn’t have said the thing he didn’t actually say but you’re mad at him for not saying but secretly meaning to say.
Which, uh, is what he said.
Of course, we know that he wasn’t. But even if he had been, nothing about the president’s speech disputes your hypothetical excuse for the guy who killed the unarmed teenager.
And of course the president didn’t say there was, except in the speech he delivered into your fillings.
Sure thing, but you guys are doing a pretty good job on your own: Martin was black and the president is black. The president expressed empathy for the parents who lost their child so he has clearly played the race card.
Zimmerman is latino, but lighter skinned than Martin. Plus he was carrying a concealed weapon and harrassing black pedestrians in his neighborhood, so he was one of the good latinos, so he clearly must be defended against the liberal mainstream media who are showing their bias by asking how a child walking home from the store was killed by a self appointed protector of the community.
Clearly you must defend Zimmerman with all your being. To express any empathy for the parents who lost their child, or to suggest that a system is flawed that lets someone who stalks and shoots an unarmed minor without triggering a thorough investigation by the police is to cave to Obama’s socialist agenda.
Er…I’m commenting in a thread about the President’s comment about an Imaginary son who he said (not me) would look like Martin. Seems reasonable to point out given all the rhetoric around this issue.
Couldn’t the President have simply related to the victim’s parents by saying that is also a Father and he understands their pain Why invent a pretend son? He already has two children of his own.
He did say that, of course. And I would say Obama actually did learn his lesson from the Gates imbroglio (which was much less serious than this issue) because he went out of his way not to criticize anybody individually. I would expect any human being with a functioning sense of empathy to agree that this is a sad situation, that the Martin family suffered a terrible tragedy, and that this should be investigated thoroughly - which initially it was not.
The victim was unarmed and evidently doing nothing even close illegal when he was shot to death. And he was shot by a civilian who had been advised to leave things to the police. Whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime, it’s pretty hard to think of a way Martin could have been in the wrong. There is apparently evidence they fought before the shooting, but that on its own wouldn’t come close to justifying what happened.
Yes, that’s exactly how it works. Only after Obama speaks are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton allowed to get involved in some kind of tragedy or PR stunt. They need his permission. That’s the way it works because Obama is the president of black people and they all take their marching orders from him. If Obama hadn’t made some comments Friday about the fact that this is a sad story, nobody would have brought up any racial or political issues related to the case.
Louis Farrakhan has been a dick since the early 1960s if not before that, so it’s hard to pin that one on Obama. And I’m pretty sure Farrakhan sent that tweet before Obama said anything Friday. Other than that, yes, it’s Obama’s fault.
Sure he could have, but it struck me – no particular fan of Mr Obama – that he was speaking from the heart, saying what he felt when he saw Treyvon’s face.
That’s not a bad thing and it’s not a race thing. In fact, to deliberately avoid a mention of race when it would be natural to do it is itself a racist reaction.
Of course, he did mention his own children. I’m seeing a pattern here. His exact words were, “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.” Later, he said “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon,” and that’s broadly true. Must we make this complicated? Obama didn’t inject race into this, and the notion that he did so is absurd. Race was an issue here from the first instant. It appears (but hasn’t been proved) that race influenced George Zimmerman’s decision to watch, follow, and eventually shoot Trayvon Martin, and it’s possible (and not proved) that race played a role in the fact that there wasn’t even a real investigation. Even if race was not a factor in either of those decisions, a lot of people certainly thought that it was, which means people were discussing this situation in terms of race for days. Obama was asked about the issue because there had been national protests for a couple of days. Nobody needed Barack Obama’s permission or his OK to bring up race with regard to this shooting.
I think anyone should be able to realize that this is going to hit home for black families in a way it won’t for most other people. That’s part of what Obama was saying, and it should not be a controversial point because it is obviously true. Everybody with teenagers worries they’ll get into trouble; black families (and I assume some other minority families) worry that maybe something worse will happen because some police are predisposed to view their kids as criminals, and that as a result of assumptions like that, it’s possible something tragic like this will happen that might not happen to another kid. Since we ought to be able to acknowledge that this is true, it’s ridiculous to criticize Obama for mentioning it.
To the people who think the president is making this a “race” thing: Could it be possible that Obama said what he said because he actually thought Martin *looked *like him-- and that really hit home for him the pain his parents must be going through? Perhaps Obama wasn’t bringing race into it, but rather resemblance.
When a black man says “That guy looks like me,” or “That guy could be my son,” it’s probably not because they merely share the same skin color. But that’s the first thing a racist would think: “Of course he could be your son, you’re both black.”
Contrary to the old saying, they really don’t all look alike.
One role that the President plays is to speak to the nation in times of tragedy, or when events anywhere become part of the national dialogue. He can use his words to help frame the response and the debate. I saw the President’s remarks about Trayvon looking like he could be his son as a way of framing this story as a matter of personal grief, the grief of a parent, rather than as bringing race into the discussion. Any time the current President addresses issues from a heartfelt and personal point of view, there is likely to be a racial element, because the President is black. But expressing a direct and personal reaction to Trayvon’s death was more about the President saying, “I understand the hurt that this family is feeling,” than “I think this was a racial issue.”
And if the result of the investigation is to discover that Trayvon provoked the attack in some way, and that Zimmerman was acting within the law, that doesn’t change the resonance or the appropriateness of the President’s words.
You’re commenting, over and over, about the race of each individual character in this drama, while complaining about the president – who hasn’t mentioned race at all – bringing race into it. You’re even commenting about some perceived difference between the race you are claiming the president claims and the race you attribute to him (despite the fact that the president has made no secret of the fact that his mother was white.)
You’re obsessively examining the racial minutiae of this event, and accusing someone who hasn’t actually brought race up of focusing on it. Psychiatrists call this “projecting”, dude.
I think what the president meant is that if he had son he would be subject to the same suspicions as Trayvon Martin (if it weren’t for all that Secret Service protection). And I agree.
Funny thing is if it was Bush or Clinton and they said “he could have been my son” no one would have thought it odd at all, they wouldn’t have puzzled over the meaning because the meaning is obvious.
I feel like every word out of Obama’s mouth is being gone over with a semantic comb because critics want to catch him saying something politically incorrect or something.
IIRC, there was an investigation. Many were not happy with it.
Do you, perhaps, mean a trial and conviction? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious:
You are correct about that. IF he had said that. But, he didn’t.
He said "If he had been my son, he would have looked like me." Pretty effin’ weird. Listen, he was trying, but, it just was weird. He got the desired effect, so it was a win, and there is no need to get so defensive about it; but, if Bush or Clinton had said same, a lot more people would have been all over them.