biracial bear for uncut posted:

Source your quotes, because that is not even close to what I do, literally. "Everything is bad" is not the same thing.

biracial bear for uncut posted:

Because that is literally the only reason Republicans opposed him. He literally had many of the same policies they themselves would propose, but because he was black they'd vote against anything he was in favor of and for anything he was against.

blackguy32 posted:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821460&pagenumber=2118&perpage=40#post475130521


This is a great hot take.

biracial bear for uncut posted:

Is it really? Keep in mind that the current President is dismantling programs for no other reason than "Obama signed off on it". He is on record as saying that.

What meaning does "hot take" even have in this context?

blackguy32 posted:

Saying that Republicans would like Obama if he wasn't Black because of the legislation that he passed is a real big stretch. You asked for an example, and this is a good example that simply because Obama may have passed some compromise bills or bailed out banks, then he is basically Republican-lite.

blackguy32 posted:

Yeah, you are part of the problem right now if you think Obama was the same as Republicans.

stone cold posted:

i didn't know you wrote for current affairs, biracial bear for uncut

quote:

Race produces a set of lived experiences that inform our political perspective, but identity cannot be used as a mitigating factor for political shortcomings. A glance at the unusually diverse 2016 Republican primary field illustrates as much. If we believe that a political candidate’s identity overrides their substantive beliefs and policy prescriptions, then a Ben Carson/Carly Fiorina ticket would have been a progressive dream.

quote:

Harris, Booker, Patrick, Biden, Warren: all deserve scrutiny. So does any other potential candidate. That scrutiny should be applied evenly, in proportion to a candidate’s likelihood of success and the quality of their record. It’s not an act of racism to question whether the Democratic Party should select as its presidential nominee a career prosecutor with a controversial record on misconduct issues. Pretending that these candidates are criticized solely on the basis of race or gender is, in itself, a lesser form of prejudice: it erases their flaws, and flattens their humanity. Treating people as people requires acknowledgment of their imperfections. To err, after all, is human.

William Contraalto posted:

Although this is slightly off-topic and probably ought to get its own thread, I'm curious as to what Republican positions Obama had, exactly. Are we talking things that have broad bipartisan support? Are we talking about the insistence that Obamacare is a Republican plan because it has a vague resemblance to a Heritage Foundation plan from the early 1990s and a closer resemblance to a plan that the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts passed by veto-proof majorities but Mitt Romney signed? Are we obsessing over the whole Grand Bargain fiasco and pretending that Republicans actually want to keep Social Security and Medicare around? Are we talking about foreign policy, an area where the difference has repeatedly been shown to be extremely stark over the last seven months? Are we still on about the bailouts? Are we channeling Matt Taibbi on the financial system?

To bring this back to being more on-topic, this seems to be an example of the standards being higher for politicians of color- people don't have any of this kind of view of Kennedy or Johnson or FDR , where even people denouncing them don't do so on the grounds that they were secretly of the other party.

blackguy32 posted:

Yeah, you are part of the problem right now if you think Obama was the same as Republicans.

biracial bear for uncut posted:

There is something seriously hosed if my arguing that the main reason Republicans hated Obama was because they are racists somehow becomes "I think there is no difference between Obama and Republicans"

quote:

because I pointed out that Republicans were literally running on "we'll do most of what he is doing, but we're white"

quote:

back before the current "gently caress it, we're going full on race war" path they are on now.

blackguy32 posted:

No, I think it is perfectly on-topic because we are discussing black people, and to segue into the future, you already see people on the left gearing up their attacks onto other prominent black politicians out of some fear that they might run in 2020. Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker have all fallen victim to this. It's pretty telling how people have been showing their rear end as of late, but I think a lot of it comes down to fear that they know whoever runs is going to have to go through the gauntlet that is Black Democrats in the South, where a lot people don't buy into the bullshit about how economic policies will help everyone somehow without focusing on race as well.

Koalas March posted:

Wtf is going on here.

HCC, you don't need to try and code switch to convince us you're "down" or what the gently caress ever.

blackguy32 posted:

No, I think it is perfectly on-topic because we are discussing black people, and to segue into the future, you already see people on the left gearing up their attacks onto other prominent black politicians out of some fear that they might run in 2020. Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker have all fallen victim to this. It's pretty telling how people have been showing their rear end as of late, but I think a lot of it comes down to fear that they know whoever runs is going to have to go through the gauntlet that is Black Democrats in the South, where a lot people don't buy into the bullshit about how economic policies will help everyone somehow without focusing on race as well.

flashman posted:

Ok, but who are the left wing black politicians that they are gearing up attacks on?

flashman posted:

Ok, but who are the left wing black politicians that they are gearing up attacks on?

flashman posted:

I mean Kamala Harris is a good candidate but if you can't see the problems with Booker and Patrick you are as deluded as the colorblind policy folks.

blackguy32 posted:

I remain unconvinced of the criticism of Cory Booker. I think he is a strong candidate with liberal views. All of the critiques I have seen of him have been wishy washy guilt by association poo poo with a heaping topping of inferring that he is in bed with Wall Streets because of campaign donations. I find the argument similar to the bullshit argument about how Obama shouldn't take speaking fees because reasons.

blackguy32 posted:

I remain unconvinced of the criticism of Cory Booker. I think he is a strong candidate with liberal views. All of the critiques I have seen of him have been wishy washy guilt by association poo poo with a heaping topping of inferring that he is in bed with Wall Streets because of campaign donations. I find the argument similar to the bullshit argument about how Obama shouldn't take speaking fees because reasons.

William Contraalto posted:

Yeah. It's also very telling that the first thought of so many is to tear down black politicians rather than try to appeal to black people and black voters in Democratic primaries, while simultaneously arguing that colorblindness is meaningful anti-racism.

flashman posted:

If you don't see why left wingers dislike former presidents taking large speaking fees from Wall Street and attribute it instead to racism then it stands to figure critiques of Corey Booker would seem the same.

These minority politicians are the ones being pushed by the DNC as the acceptable centrists for this exact reason. Complaints about their connections to Wall Street and big money doners, or previous policy stances are hand waved away as veiled racism and identity politics is used as a bludgeon against the left wing of the party rather than as a means to achieve equality.

a literal block of salt posted:

If you don't see why left wingers dislike former presidents taking large speaking fees from Wall Street and attribute it instead to racism then it stands to figure critiques of Corey Booker would seem the same.

These minority politicians are the ones being pushed by the DNC as the acceptable centrists for this exact reason. Complaints about their connections to Wall Street and big money doners, or previous policy stances are hand waved away as veiled racism and identity politics is used as a bludgeon against the left wing of the party rather than as a means to achieve equality.

flashman posted:

If you don't see why left wingers dislike former presidents taking large speaking fees from Wall Street and attribute it instead to racism then it stands to figure critiques of Corey Booker would seem the same.

These minority politicians are the ones being pushed by the DNC as the acceptable centrists for this exact reason. Complaints about their connections to Wall Street and big money doners, or previous policy stances are hand waved away as veiled racism and identity politics is used as a bludgeon against the left wing of the party rather than as a means to achieve equality.

HotCanadianChick posted:

HotCanadianChick posted:

Eh sorry, I sometimes don't realize I'm doing it, both IRL or here; I spent a good chunk of my childhood (grades 7-12 pretty much) in a majority-minority state (Hawaii), and lived a few more years than that with two step-siblings that were brown, spent the first couple years that I moved to PDX with my only friends in town being a half-dozen Japanese immigrants that I was tutoring in English, and now live with a Black woman from NY*.

After spending so much of my life as the only white guy in the room, and amongst so many different ethnic and cultural groups, I more or less code-switch contextually like most PoC do. Even in my own home, me and the wife code-switch (she's the queen of sounding like a corporate receptionist one moment and turning into Tiffany Haddish the next) when talking to each other depending on whether we're talking about watching an ep of Atlanta or the latest article on VSB, versus when we're talking about Star Wars or whose autographs we want at the next comic con and we both turn nerdy AF.

Comedy option: If it make you feel betta cuz, I can try fo' talk in da kine pidgin, I no wanna start no beef bra. shoutouts to any kama'ainas in the audience, treat yoself to a spam musubi

*(the NY thing has had a terrible effect on the way I say dog and coffee BTW)


p.s. Desus and Mero are the bomb, I love their poo poo

blackguy32 posted:

I can see why Left Wingers dislike former presidents taking speaking fees. But it says a lot that no one gave as poo poo about it until President Obama did it.

KirbyKhan posted:

Why does a dude have to hurt for cash to accept a 2-day gig that'll result in 400k?

WampaLord posted:

Because taking that money doesn't happen in a vacuum. It looks like he's selling out to the very same people he was just supposed to be working to regulate.

And if he's already a millionaire several times over, well, then it sends even more of that message. Greed isn't a good look.

Again, it's bad for any President to do this, I dislike all of them equally for doing it, but Obama is the most recent example so obviously he's the one people are going to talk about.

WampaLord posted:

Do you not understand that it's more of a betrayal coming from a supposedly liberal politician than if Dubya did it, or Third Way Bill Clinton?

If Trump is hypothetically doing it after his term, I'm not going to get extra mad at him because I expect Trump to be self serving. Obama was already rich from book sales and his Presidential salary, did he really need an extra $400k right away? Was he hurting for cash that bad?

grieving for Gandalf posted:

if I took money from corporate interests, I would expect the leftist community not to gently caress with me anymore

also Kamala Harris is bad, lol it's easy to see why a prosecutor is not gonna be a leftist voice

William Contraalto posted:

"Taking money from corporate interests" is the reality of American elections, and was the reality long before Citizens United and demanding some idiotic Puritanism about taking money only from the poor and unions is self-destructive and pointless. This is before we actually look at whether the politicians beloved of leftists actually live up to the Puritan standard or not and see that mysteriously these things only matter when it's a marginalized person doing them.

William Contraalto posted:

"Taking money from corporate interests" is the reality of American elections, and was the reality long before Citizens United and demanding some idiotic Puritanism about taking money only from the poor and unions is self-destructive and pointless. This is before we actually look at whether the politicians beloved of leftists actually live up to the Puritan standard or not and see that mysteriously these things only matter when it's a marginalized person doing them.