Will Mr. Obama be the last Black President

[jerofld]

*sigh*

I am highly distrustful of both parties, GOP and Democrat, because they both are reckless. Fair enough, the GOP *may* lie more often, and maybe even inequitably so. I don't see how politifact is more right-wing than factcheck based on your assertion alone. But I'll drop it as an issue.

The Democrats are reckless because of the people that run it often like to run into everything without concern of it's consequences. Like Nancy Pelosi's famous quote of "We have to pass it to find out what is in it". Seriously, why is she still in politics? I don't disagree with needing to reform health care, btw.

In my state of Maryland, the state democrats are equally ridiculous. They're looking to pass gun laws without even knowing what the bills they are pushing even contain. They just tote the party line (like republicans) without considering the bill.

That is the point I'm trying to make. These people, on both sides, just march to the drum that their 'superiors' tell them to march to. They just want to ram their political agenda down the throats of the American people.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I think we can all agree that politicians lie. All of 'em - it's in the job spec. We're never going to agree who lies more or who's lies are worse.

I think most of us would agree that the democrats are far from perfect.

I think a lot of people - certainly 99% of non-Americans - believe the Republicans have gone way beyond mere imperfection. When your presidential candidate declares (in private he thought, to be fair) that he doesn't give a flying **** about half the population he seeks to govern, you need to seriously reconsider your priorities.

It's one thing to say you shouldn't soak the rich, it's a completely different thing when your policies are openly designed to squeeze the poor for the benefit of the rich.

The incomprehensible thing is how anyone who is not one of the 1% can be fooled into supporting them. I've seen Fox News and the like, but they are so obviously talking bollix, surely no-one could conceivably believe them?

 

[Bob Maxey]

I think we can all agree that politicians lie. All of 'em - it's in the job spec. We're never going to agree who lies more or who's lies are worse.

I think most of us would agree that the democrats are far from perfect.

I think a lot of people - certainly 99% of non-Americans - believe the Republicans have gone way beyond mere imperfection. When your presidential candidate declares (in private he thought, to be fair) that he doesn't give a flying **** about half the population he seeks to govern, you need to seriously reconsider your priorities.

It's one thing to say you shouldn't soak the rich, it's a completely different thing when your policies are openly designed to squeeze the poor for the benefit of the rich.

The incomprehensible thing is how anyone who is not one of the 1% can be fooled into supporting them. I've seen Fox News and the like, but they are so obviously talking bollix, surely no-one could conceivably believe them?

Hmmm . . . perhaps some politicians lie but not all of them. It just seems that way.

I do not really care what 99% of non-Americans think and I seriously doubt your assertions about what you only think most in this group or that group actually believes, anyway. Bob certainly does not agree.

Bob does agree . . the dems are far from perfect and I am thinking we are running out of decent republicans as well. My party has truly changed.

That said, true conservatism is what we need. No RINOs and certainly no liberals. We need to do some serious work and I am afraid what MUST be done will hurt some people. We need to stop trying to make everyone happy and comfortable. It will not happen when a decent president arrives and decides to fix problems.

Reforming or eliminating bad government spending costs some people money, it eliminates jobs and it can be disruptive. Some things must be done.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I do not really care what 99% of non-Americans think and I seriously doubt your assertions about what you only think most in this group or that group actually believes, anyway. Bob certainly does not agree.

99% is obviously an exageration.

What's not is that in polls conducted before the last US presidential election, only two countries had a majority supporting the GOP, one of those being Israel who see the US as their poodle and the GOP as most subservient of the two parties (I think the other country was Pakistan, but don't quote me).

Bob may not care, but perhaps he ought to ..

Bob does agree . . the dems are far from perfect and I am thinking we are running out of decent republicans as well. My party has truly changed.

Amen to that.

That said, true conservatism is what we need.

The evidence of the last 30 years is very much against that assertion.

I am afraid what MUST be done will hurt some people. We need to stop trying to make everyone happy and comfortable

Wow! That really is an horrific sentiment!

The goverment should stop working for the benefit of the people?!

Presumably, since you're a Republican, you believe, like your party, that government should be of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% and the rest should perish?

The GOP sure has moved a long way since Lincoln ..

It will not happen when a decent president arrives and decides to fix problems

You have an awesome president right now. Apart from Clinton - who the GOP also shamefully de-railed - he's the best you've had since LBJ.

You should work with him instead of fighting every single thing he says or tries to do.

Reforming or eliminating bad government

No problem with that.

Spending costs some people money, it eliminates jobs and it can be disruptive

Reducing spend is more disruptive when your economy is weak. Look at the US in the 1930s and UK in the 1930s and 2010s.

What you should do is spend to stimulate the economy when you're in recession and cut spending when you're not.

The problem in the past has been governments have not cut when times are good which has resulted in the economy over heating, creating bubbles and the bubbles bursting.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I am highly distrustful of both parties, GOP and Democrat

When I see the use of the invective "Democrat" instead of the proper "Democratic" Party, I know that I'm dealing with a GOP operative. Your allegiance is showing.

If you have any evidence that the Democratic Party is "reckless" (as you claimed), please show it.

The Democrats are reckless because of the people that run it often like to run into everything without concern of it's consequences. Like Nancy Pelosi's famous quote of "We have to pass it to find out what is in it". Seriously, why is she still in politics?

Personal attacks aside, what in particular do you think is wrong with her candor?

You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention

 

[pmb116]

Who Are Pell Grant Recipients? | Inside Higher Ed

1999 - 2000, whites received the majority of the PELL Grants if the above is true. It must be because it was on the internet.

This:

http://www.finaid.org/educators/ProfileofPellGrantRecipients.pdf

I think says something different. I did not read it, just posting random facts to fill white space. We call it 'padding.' You read it and tell me. Smiley.

Here is an idea . . before posting mostly blacks or whites or greens recieve more or less Pell cash, how about a little research first? Bob does not know either way.

Both your links show that whites receive the most Pell Grants. Just saying. You may have scanned it and saw the little sentence where they combined black and Latino numbers when combined were > than white numbers.

FWIW

 

[sntaylor]

Both your links show that whites receive the most Pell Grants. Just saying. You may have scanned it and saw the little sentence where they combined black and Latino numbers when combined were > than white numbers.

FWIW

I had been confused by that as well but assumed my sleepless nights were playing tricks on me as no one else had spotted it! Personally I think in this day and age there should be no need to state what racial background you are from.

Possibly the wrong thread to comment on but what's with the use of "illegal aliens" .... These are still people, not an alien species....they are immigrants, just not passed through customs legally it have over stayed visas etc.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I had been confused by that as well but assumed my sleepless nights were playing tricks on me as no one else had spotted it! Personally I think in this day and age there should be no need to state what racial background you are from.

Possibly the wrong thread to comment on but what's with the use of "illegal aliens" .... These are still people, not an alien species....they are immigrants, just not passed through customs legally it have over stayed visas etc.

Regarding illegal immigrants, it is very easy for us in Fortress Europe to say that. The US has more illegal immigrants than we have legal ones in a sense. Granted they are needed for cheap labour and such but nonetheless.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I think in this day and age there should be no need to state what racial background you are from.

In this day and age we are supposed to have flying cars. The fact of the matter is that we don't have flying cars or racial equality.

"If ifs and buts were like candy and nuts then every day would be Christmas."
--John Boehner

IMHO that ought to apply to "shoulds" as well.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Regarding illegal immigrants, it is very easy for us in Fortress Europe to say that. The US has more illegal immigrants than we have legal ones in a sense. Granted they are needed for cheap labour and such but nonetheless.

Don't know about that: illegal immigration is a relatively small issue in the UK however it's a pretty big issue across southern Europe which is but a short boat ride from N. Africa and the middle east.

One 'benefit' of the global economic problems the right wing caused and which will make them very happy, is that illegal immigration is a much smaller issue in the US and Europe now than it was when our economies were doing well

 

[ElasticNinja]

Don't know about that: illegal immigration is a relatively small issue in the UK however it's a pretty big issue across southern Europe which is but a short boat ride from N. Africa and the middle east.

One 'benefit' of the global economic problems the right wing caused and which will make them very happy, is that illegal immigration is a much smaller issue in the US and Europe now than it was when our economies were doing well

Well yes, in Greece and Italy, and Spain to a degree, illegal immigration has become a big issue as we have failed to provide the staff, funding and equipment in these areas.

However, still, far less illegal immigrants get through. Once they do get through they tend to disperse quite quickly too.

But anyway, we do not have a single digit percentage of our population being illegals.


This is often an issue that I end up pointing out to other Europeans who like to laugh at the extremity of Americans without any qualification of their arguments. Sure, we are all-liberal and inclusive so long as you aren't Muslim, Gypsy, or an immigrant. Of course we don't have any racism in Europe, so now people just target cultural Arabs and those of 'foreign' religions.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Hmm ..

Not sure about your numbers.

Certainly, from what I've seen, illegal immigration in the UK at it's peak was about a quarter that of the US.

The story in southern europe is rather different. Most sources I found quoted US illegal immigration at around 2%. According to one article I just found, in Spain it went from 2% in 1990 to 14% before the current crisis.

Of course, by it's nature, it's almost impossible to be sure about any numbers however those above do suggest that, contrary to your view, it's actually a significantly bigger issue in southern europe than it is in the US.

But it is something of a moot point in many ways as - per my earlier observation - the situation now is vastly different. For example, net immigration from Mexico to the US is currently estimated to be zero or perhaps even negative - i.e. as many or more Mexicans are returning to Mexico than are going to the US.

Just like in the UK, the right is frantically trying to lock a stable door long after the horse bolted.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Hmm ..

Not sure about your numbers.

Certainly, from what I've seen, illegal immigration in the UK at it's peak was about a quarter that of the US.

That sounds a bit high, but probably right.

The story in southern europe is rather different. Most sources I found quoted US illegal immigration at around 2%. According to one article I just found, in Spain it went from 2% in 1990 to 14% before the current crisis.

Link isnt working for me.

14% is impossible. A lot of Spanish regions wont have 14% immigration (from outside the region). Even non Spanish immigrants is a bit of a push at 14% (Which would amount to some 7 million people). Legal non-Europeans wouldn't come close to 14%. Illegals in double digit figures? Not a chance.

Of course, by it's nature, it's almost impossible to be sure about any numbers however those above do suggest that, contrary to your view, it's actually a significantly bigger issue in southern europe than it is in the US.

Well I would imagine it is a bigger issue. The US gets educated, culturally Western illegals. The illegals that come to Europe often have little schooling, and are from somewhat different cultures, which makes them more visible. The language barrier is stronger too. How many Chadians know Catalan or Dutch?

But it is something of a moot point in many ways as - per my earlier observation - the situation now is vastly different. For example, net immigration from Mexico to the US is currently estimated to be zero or perhaps even negative - i.e. as many or more Mexicans are returning to Mexico than are going to the US.

Well, there is no problem with legal immigration! The problem is when people have come illegally and such. I just don't think illegal immigration should be condoned really.

Just like in the UK, the right is frantically trying to lock a stable door long after the horse bolted.

Well the UK situation is a different kettle of fish and somewhat different.

In the UK, it is not a question of illegals - it is about other Europeans, which is mad really. I mean look at the situation with regard to Bulgaria and Romania, its stomach turning.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...igrants-no-longer-given-free-health-care.html

EDIT: According to this lovely Torygraph article (sorry), 1% of Spain is illegal. One can extrapolate that to Europe having a rate a good bit below 1% overall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577617383132000476.html

Arcticle with some statistics.

 

[pmb116]

The problem with using statistics like such is they are often very skewed. It is near impossible to get a valid number of illegal immigrants. I ask how these statistics are being recorded. The Mexican illegal statistic alone is plain silly. I can assure you that the majority of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. are not educated, as was stated.
78% of illegals in the U.S. are from Mexico/Central America with only a combined 6% coming from Europe/Canada.

 

[Gmash]

Isn't France having a problem with a lot of Muslim immigrants?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Isn't France having a problem with a lot of Muslim immigrants?

The thing is, those immigrants game between the 50s and 70s, and were perfectly legal (French Union and all that). France doesn't have a big illegal problem, they are more focused on rounding up Gypsies.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Can't help thinking this discussion has strayed quite far from the original, will Obama be the last black president thing

 

[rpstrongbad]

He might be the last for a while, but not really sure that race matters in the election's

 

[SiempreTuna]

It would be SO good if that were true ..

 

[jerofld]

When I see the use of the invective "Democrat" instead of the proper "Democratic" Party, I know that I'm dealing with a GOP operative. Your allegiance is showing.

Oh really? Here's a little history on my 'party affiliation'. I left the military due in part to GWB's policies. I supported Obama's bid to the DNC nomination and presidency. It is his actions since then that have driven me away from the party. I do not embrace the GOP. I was all for the change that the DNC was promising at the end of the GWB era. It fell short, IMO.

And, BTW, had I been of age to vote at the time Reagan was in office, I would have voted against him. I do not go to church and I believe in a person's right to marry whomever they wish, regardless of gender. I think plan parenthood is a good program. I'm pretty sure the GOP would never consider me for a poster boy.

If you have any evidence that the Democratic Party is "reckless" (as you claimed), please show it.

Wanting to pass a sweeping health care bill by rushing it through congress while they still had the power to cram it down the country's throat is one good example. Then giving waivers to all their political friends so that much fewer people have to contribute to it. Wanting to strip gun owners rights are another. Then there's the Libya, Syria, and Benghazi incidents that should simply not have happened.

Personal attacks aside, what in particular do you think is wrong with her candor?

Because she is a hypocrite. She pushed so hard for the health care act, yet a lot of her district got waivers. If the health care act is so wonderful, then why are a large number of the waivers issued from the Obama administration been given to the friends/supporters of the Democratic party?

In tonight's news we learned that the GOP rank and file were kept in the dark about the details of the President's various positions on current issues. So obviously there is still a problem within the Republican Party of cover-ups. Shame on the GOP leadership for hiding key facts from their followers. Shame on them the GOP rank and file for failing to take their own initiative to read the facts themselves. But then again it's the cult-like, militaristic top-down power structure within the Republican Party that makes truisms like what Leader Pelosi said true.

Ms. Pelosi is the House Minority Leader, if you're going to hold me to Democratic instead of Democrat, you should also use her correct title instead of giving her some cult-like name. Representative and/or Congresswoman are also acceptable answers.

And it would figure that the GOP hides info from their party. I do not associate with them and hopefully the GOP decides that it's time to replace their leadership for failing to perform to the standards that I'm sure are written down somewhere in their convention.

The fact that you present the situation in a way that has lines of battle drawn, military chains of command alleged and hostilities implied speaks volumes about the mindset of your political party. However, just because your political party thinks that way doesn't automatically mean that everyone else thinks the same way.

Again, my party is not the GOP. Technically, I'm still registered the the Democratic party. Which, by the way, was listed as "Democrat". Just because someone speaks against you does not mean they are in the opposing organization.

Which is the same thing you're doing. You're drawing a line, assigning me a side (which I have stated that I do not associate with) and attacking me as a combatant of that organization.

I reject this notion that "the other side" thinks exactly like your side. There's no factual basis for that assumption. I only see a single major political party on the warpath, not two. No, I will not be drawn into the "everybody's misbehaving" excuse coming from a group that's been caught misbehaving. I believe in taking personal responsibility, and I wish that Republicans would start taking responsibility for what they've done.

Speaking of that responsibility thing...has Eric Holder yet taken responsibility for Fast and Furious? If he knew about it or not is completely irrelevant. It happened on his watch. Those who served in the military know that if something happened on your watch, it was yours even if the pieces were set into motion before your watch or without your knowing they even took place. Considering he has a lot of dealings with the military, I would have thought that he would have picked that up by now.

I'm also still a bit upset about Benghazi. The Obama administration completely dropped the ball on that one. They knew about it but still did nothing. That has been said by those who survived the ordeal, not the administration.

I also do not like how the President pushed for the NDAA. It ranks up there with the Patriot act, which I also despise.

-------------

As for the original topic. No, Obama will not be the last President of color. The balance of the ethnicities are starting to even out. It is only a matter of time. Which is a good thing, IMO. This country has been a home to many different backgrounds from countries all over the world. It only makes sense that more of those with different backgrounds rise to higher tiers of the government.

Expect to see more Hispanics in government, as well, in the upcoming years.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Libya and Syria incidents? What are they?

 

[SiempreTuna]

I left the military due in part to GWB's policies

That's quite a stand. Kudos.

I was all for the change that the DNC was promising at the end of the GWB era. It fell short, IMO

No argument there.

I just give Obama more credit for trying than you do - in many cases (not all), he was prevented from doing the right than by GOP intransigence.

And, BTW, had I been of age to vote at the time Reagan was in office, I would have voted against him

Reagan was a pretty poor president overall, however some changes made by him and Maggie Thatcher were necessary. The pendulum was way too far to the left. It's now way too far to the right.

I do not go to church and I believe in a person's right to marry whomever they wish, regardless of gender. I think plan parenthood is a good program

You're officially not a bigot

Wanting to pass a sweeping health care bill by rushing it through congress while they still had the power to cram it down the country's throat is one good example

To be fair, they'd spend nearly two years desperately trying to get bipartisan agreement, even going so far as to ditch their policy entirely in favour of an entirely Republican one - one actually enacted by a Republican - and still couldn't get the GOP to move one iota.

Faced with that, they'd have been perfectly justified in 'forcing' through something way more radical but they didn't.

Then giving waivers to all their political friends so that much fewer people have to contribute to it

Did not know that. Definitely not good.

Still, not as bad as the Supreme Court's ridiculously skewed decisions on electoral funding.

Wanting to strip gun owners rights are another

Err .. no.

At most, they have been seeking to take the law back to something approaching what it was prior to Reagan loading the supreme court with gun fanatics. Until then, there had always been laws that limited gun ownership rights, going all the way back.

All that's being proposed now are some limits on gun rights, consistent with historical precedent.

Then there's the Libya, Syria, and Benghazi incidents that should simply not have happened
..
I'm also still a bit upset about Benghazi. The Obama administration completely dropped the ball on that one. They knew about it but still did nothing. That has been said by those who survived the ordeal, not the administration.

True. Benghazi was a tragic mistake and showed an unusual degree of incompetence - unusual because the Obama administration has been remarkably competent which may be why the GOP has been trying to make so much of it.

It also pales into insignifcance when compared to the incompetence of the previous administration that started and lost two wars.

Syria is a mess, however with Russia threatening to escalate on Al-Assad's side if the rebels are given even medical and food aide, never mind weapons, it's kinda hard to see what the administration could actually do.

Finally, Libya. That was an amazing victory for Obama's policy. A very evil dictator taken down with zero US blood and relatively little treasure. Really don't understand what you're referring to there.

I also do not like how the President pushed for the NDAA. It ranks up there with the Patriot act, which I also despise

Absolutely.

No, Obama will not be the last President of color. The balance of the ethnicities are starting to even out. It is only a matter of time. Which is a good thing, IMO. This country has been a home to many different backgrounds from countries all over the world. It only makes sense that more of those with different backgrounds rise to higher tiers of the government

Expect to see more Hispanics in government, as well, in the upcoming years.

Amen to that.

 

[EarlyMon]

I think it's going to be a struggle to try to get back to the question of whether President Obama will be our last Black president.

Anyone disagrees, drop me a line, cheers!