• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?[W:170]

Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?


  • Total voters
    44
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Zimmerman approached because he saw a sketchy looking young man, who probably wasn't up to any good. The fact of the matter is that Martin's subsequent actions prove that he was absolutely right.

We are going in circles.

But yes he thought the young man was sketchy because of his race. Therefore race was a factor. You are discussing things that are completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Focus here. Try really hard. I know you can do it.

We are not discussing the fight. Or what Martin might have been thinking about doing when he got home. We are discussing the fact that Obama said that could have been his son and that Zimmerman found his suspicious because Martin was black. EVERYTHING before the moment Zimmerman decided to approach him and EVERYTHING after he decided to approach him is not relevant to this conversation. I don't think you should be struggling so hard to comprehend this.

I am discussing the topic. You are bringing up irrelevant information.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

I don't see anything wrong with what Zimmerman did. He noticed the behavior of someone scoping out houses and decided to follow and report his behavior to the authorities. When the authorities told him to back down he obeyed their wish(it was not an order) to do so.

This isn't about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. We are discussing, or trying to, whether Martins race was a factor is Zimmermans decision to approach him. It was. That is all.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

I don't see any reason to doubt the relevant details of Zimmerman's story, no. Again, the guy was beat to Hell, and we have statements from Trayvon himself, coming from a source who wouldn't have any reason to lie, saying that he intended to attack Zimmerman. All of that is consistent with Zimmerman acting in self-defense.

That's exactly why he was acquitted to begin with.

Does someone being acquitted always equate to innocence?

OJ? Clinton? Anthony? I could go on but won't.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

But yes he thought the young man was sketchy because of his race. Therefore race was a factor.

This isn't about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. We are discussing, or trying to, whether Martins race was a factor is Zimmermans decision to approach him. It was. That is all.

:roll:

And it could have just as easily been because Trayvon Martin was a male teenager, and a big, intimidating looking, one at that - i.e. exactly the kind of person, statistically speaking, most likely to be looking for troubling while wandering around by himself late at night, and therefore exactly the kind of person a "neighborhood watch" is going to be looking out for.

The fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that race was the primary factor at play here. Even if it was involved in some manner, it's completely irrelevant. Extremely mild racial discrimination is not justification for violent assault.

It's certainly not justification for the all of overwrought the media hysteria that followed, especially not considering that all evidence supports the conclusion that Trayvon was actually the aggressor here, and that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. The fact that the President of the United States himself played a deliberate role in egging that on is nothing less than disgraceful.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

This isn't about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. We are discussing, or trying to, whether Martins race was a factor is Zimmermans decision to approach him. It was. That is all.

So you're just going to yell racist without evidence. Ok.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

I'm more concerned that the president leaves the country in better shape than it was before he or she was first inaugurated.

And there's no denying that's the case with Number 44.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

I'm more concerned that the president leaves the country in better shape than it was before he or she was first inaugurated.

And there's no denying that's the case with Number 44.

I absolutely deny it.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Economically, you can't possibly deny it. If you think that any other factor outweighs the economic recovery, do tell.

Under Obama the national debt doubled, prices on everything from food to housing skyrocketed, the middle class shrank, home ownership bottomed out, near 10% unemployment became the established norm, debilitating underemployment became a chronic state of affairs for a huge chunk of the population, and government dependency ballooned to its highest levels ever. That's not what I call a "successful" Presidency.

The very best you can claim is that things aren't quite as bad as they were smack-dab in the middle of the Recession in '08. However, even that's ultimately damning him with faint praise. His supposed "recovery" is extremely anemic in comparison to what past presidents accomplished, and mostly only managed to produce jobs on the very bottom of the spectrum, which don't pay living wages.

Murdock%202,%202015-1-8_0.jpg


That's before we even get into all the damage he did to American society through the highly divisive racial and class-based rabble rousing he incessantly promoted, the rabid and authoritarian Leftist overreach he inspired in popular culture, or how he's weakened our military and political position overseas vis-a-vis our allies and rivals alike.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Under Obama the national debt doubled, prices on everything from food to housing skyrocketed, the middle class shrank, home ownership bottomed out, underemployment became a chronic state of affairs for a huge chunk of the population, and government dependency ballooned to its highest levels ever. That's not what I call a "successful" Presidency.

And now you get to have all of that 5 times over with Trump! Let me know how that works out for you.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Under Obama the national debt doubled,

Not only is this false, it was largely due to his predecessor.

prices on everything from food to housing skyrocketed,

I don't think this is "skyrocketing":

014957c51e4e72ca6787f74af92a49d3.png


By any stretch of the imagination.

the middle class shrank,

A forty year trend due to the architecture of republican steal-from-the-middle-give-to-the-rich policy.

ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-01.png


home ownership bottomed out,

At the end of the bubble that created the housing collapse. You must have some serious faith in President Obama's influence if you think that he was running the show in 2003.

near 10% unemployment became the established norm,

That's just a flat-out lie.


fredgraph.png


debilitating underemployment became a chronic state of affairs for a huge chunk of the population, and government dependency ballooned to its highest levels ever. That's not what I call a "successful" Presidency.

The very best you can claim is that things aren't quite as bad as they were smack-dab in the middle of the Recession in '08. However, even that's ultimately damning him with faint praise. His supposed "recovery" is extremely anemic in comparison to what past presidents accomplished, and mostly only managed to produce jobs on the very bottom of the spectrum, which don't pay living wages.

Murdock%202,%202015-1-8_0.jpg


That's before we even get into all the damage he did to American society through his incessant racial and class-based rabble rousing, or the rabid Leftist cultural overreach he inspired.

Do you have anything to offer other than rhetoric and lies?
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Not only is this false, it was largely due to his predecessor.

No, it is absolutely true. It is also due pretty much exclusively to Obama's endless (and largely ineffective) "stimulus packages."

I don't think this is "skyrocketing":

014957c51e4e72ca6787f74af92a49d3.png


By any stretch of the imagination.

Did you miss $4.00 a gallon for gas, or the fact that prices for basically everything we buy have increased over the course of the last 8 years?

In any case, the facts prove you wrong. Economists agree that wages either stagnated or went down and prices went up under the Obama Administration.

The Telegraph - Life under Obama sucks. And these numbers prove it

A forty year trend due to the architecture of republican steal-from-the-middle-give-to-the-rich policy.

ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-01.png

Even if we were to accept that reasoning, the fact of the matter is that Obama only made things worse, not better.

At the end of the bubble that created the housing collapse. You must have some serious faith in President Obama's influence if you think that he was running the show in 2003.

Which doesn't change the fact that home ownership is at its lowest point in more than 20 years.

Home-Ownership-Chart.jpg


That's just a flat-out lie.


fredgraph.png

No, that graphic is a "flat out lie," spread as propaganda by the Obama Administration. Real unemployment is sitting around 9.5% right now, and again, a Hell of a lot of the people that the Obama Administration actually did put to work are only working in minimum wage jobs that they can't live off of anyway.

Gallup - The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Do you have anything to offer other than rhetoric and lies?

Do you?
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

No, Martin was killed because he decided to attack someone that was armed.

Zimmerman got off because Martin attacked him, yes. Martin was approached and the altercation was provoked because he was a black kid walking through a white neighborhood and that is inherently suspicious to people who have racial opinions based on stereotypes...which fits under the umbrella term racism.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

No, it is absolutely true. It is also due pretty much exclusively due to Obama's endless (and largely ineffective) "stimulus packages."



Did you miss $4.00 a gallon for gas, or the fact that prices for basically everything we buy have increased over the course of the last 8 years?

In any case, the facts prove you wrong. Economists agree that wages went down and prices went up under the Obama Administration.

The Telegraph - Life under Obama sucks. And these numbers prove it



Even if we were to accept that reasoning, the fact of the matter is that Obama only made things worse, not better.



Which doesn't change the fact that home ownership is at its lowest point in more than 20 years.

Home-Ownership-Chart.jpg




No, that graphic is a "flat out lie," spread as propaganda by the Obama Administration. Real unemployment is sitting around 9.5% right now, and again, a Hell of a lot of the people that the Obama Administration actually did put to work are only working in minimum wage jobs that they can't live off of anyway.

Gallup - The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment



Do you?

The official figure for unemployment is the same one used before Obama got into office and started "lying" to all of you. It's the same figure that was used by every administration as far back as I can remember. To assert he is lying to you because he is using the same statistical measure we have used in the past is utterly false partisan nonsense. The DoL calculates what you call "real unemployment" too and its listed in their reports, though its not the official number. Its not the official number for a reason. Outside of recession times where chronic unemployment pushed the number of workers who have quit looking for jobs or are underemployed into abnormally high levels, it is arguably a better metric. In 2000, I learned about the different merits of each metric in business school and people had the same concerns about using one vs the other then. This is not a new phenomenon.

Now in your own link you can see the trend of your "real unemployment" figure and it is still cut in more than half from the height of the recession and only about 1.2 points off from peak employment in the early 2000's. So does that not mean the economy has recovered dramatically from the economic crisis? Point me to where Obama has said that the recovery is over and everyone is back in high paying jobs again? Every time I hear him talk about it he says "more work is needed to be done".
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

All president elects say it, that they'll be everyone's president but it does seem that's pretty much immediately forgotten. Now I see a lot of pundits (who bashed Trump and said he never had a chance) try to counsel him about what he needs to do to reach out to those upset at his win and I wondered why they weren't so similarly concerned when Obama became prez (that I remember).

What I suspect that we're the most concerned about our president reaching out to the other side when we're the in the losing side.

I was going to say more but I'm watching the football pre game shows and now I'm distracted, so poll in the way.

He seemed to care about the very rich, and the black community. That's leaving out about 85-90% of the country.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Worse than ever? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd have to say we were much more divided when one race enslaved the other. Everyday most of us all get along just fine.

Are you ****ing serious about that slavery remark? OMFG, and that has exact what to do with Obama, because he wasn't around when they fixed that.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Well, if - Martin was killed because he was black (the factor that got idiot Zimmerman after him), then how is Kreton wrong. Racism IS an issue and denying it in Martin's case is just saying it's only racism when you think it's racism. THAT is what Obama was acting on.

And it wasn't proven that Zimmerman was yelling either. No was it proven that MARTIN had a right to defend himself. So, you're whitewashing (no pun intended).

Martin was roaming around a neighborhood he didn't belong in and was ducking between houses. He was confront by the captain of the Neighborhood Watch in a gated community. Then he went after Zimmerman. We covered this, and your side lost.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Martin was roaming around a neighborhood he didn't belong in and was ducking between houses. He was confront by the captain of the Neighborhood Watch in a gated community. Then he went after Zimmerman. We covered this, and your side lost.

No. Black people are allowed to cut through neighborhoods. There is no law that says they dont.

But if you are posing the argument about a side losing because of a failed prosecution are you then willing to accept that Hillary committed no crimes and OJ is innocent? By the same standard and all.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

But if you are posing the argument about a side losing because of a failed prosecution are you then willing to accept that Hillary committed no crimes and OJ is innocent? By the same standard and all.

:lamo
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

So does that not mean the economy has recovered dramatically from the economic crisis? Point me to where Obama has said that the recovery is over and everyone is back in high paying jobs again? Every time I hear him talk about it he says "more work is needed to be done".

Which is exactly the problem. The guy's thrown eight years, trillions of dollars (basically doubling our national debt through stimulus), and every Keynesian policy in the book at his "recovery." For all of that, the results have been resoundingly mediocre at best. The fact of the matter is that the Obama economy remains - by far - the most anemic "post-recovery" economy in modern American history, and a Hell of a lot of people are still suffering for it.

Yet... to hear Obama and his cronies tell it, the man's a veritable economic Messiah, and we're all just too "stupid" to know how good we have it.

I'm sorry, but I call "B.S." on that whole narrative. It would appear that most of America agrees, given the outcome of this election.

We'll simply have to wait and see if Trump can do better.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

No. Black people are allowed to cut through neighborhoods. There is no law that says they dont.

But if you are posing the argument about a side losing because of a failed prosecution are you then willing to accept that Hillary committed no crimes and OJ is innocent? By the same standard and all.

A lone male teenager roaming around a community in which they clearly don't live, and behaving erratically while doing so, is going to draw attention either way, regardless of race.

Again, you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that "racism" was the primary factor at play here. Quite frankly, even if it was, that would not justify Trayvon's actions, or the media's reaction to the case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Which is exactly the problem. The guy's thrown eight years, trillions of dollars (basically doubling our national debt through stimulus), and every Keynesian policy in the book at his "recovery." For all of that, the results have been resoundingly mediocre at best. The fact of the matter is that the Obama economy remains - by far - the most anemic "post-recovery" economy in modern American history, and a Hell of a lot of people are still suffering for it.

Yet... to hear Obama and his cronies tell it, the man's a veritable economic Messiah, and we're all just too "stupid" to know how good we have it.

I'm sorry, but I call "B.S." on that whole narrative. It would appear that most of America agrees, given the outcome of this election.

We'll simply have to wait and see if Trump can do better.

I don't see that narrative in play anywhere except these message boards and maybe that's what you're talking about. I dunno. I do hear plenty of economists (unsurprisingly) say the issue with the stimulus package was it was too small and that was not on Obama in my opinion. That's on Congress, especially when the Republicans fought tooth and nail over every extension of unemployment benefits. The stimulus package was less than 900 billion of that budget increase by the way. The rest were the already unfunded liabilities he inherited combined with the decreases in revenue (tax) dollars due to the recession. The tax cuts included from the stimulus were already included in the previous number. Personally, I prefer Obama's stimulus package to the Fed's bailing out of AIG and Bear Stearns anyday and arguably to the handling of TARP under Bush at least until Congress limited executive pay and bonuses (after Obama was in office). I can't see how you can look at the austerity measures Europe tried to impose on itself and think things would have been better without at least some stimulus spending, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I will say this last year has seen some positive signs as far as median wage increases and a more equitable distribution of those wages. So perhaps things really are turning around a little. It'll be very difficult to suss out what is the Obama effect and what is the Trump effect now. I think there's potential for a lot of right and a lot of wrong in Trump's proposals and it'll all depend on how he handles it which is really what worries me. Like you say, we'll have to wait and see.
 
Re: Did you care if Obama was a "President for All Americans"?

Someone approaching you on the street doesn't give you license to try and beat them to death. :roll:

Martin figured that he was the bigger and meaner of the two, so he tried to take advantage of that. He simply didn't count on Zimmerman having a gun.

The dumb brute ultimately got exactly what he deserved.

We're going to have to agree to disagree

Another thread perhaps.
 
Back
Top Bottom