Veepstakes

[knapplc]

It's not that big a leap. It's been talked about for years.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-party-racism/

 

http://aattp.org/20-more-insane-racist-tea-party-signs/

 

http://www.motherjones.com/slideshows/2010/09/tea-partys-racist-signs/niggar

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/tea-party-is-bald-faced-racists-white-privilege-conference-speaker-tells-sea-of-white-people/

 

http://www.newsweek.com/are-tea-partiers-racist-70695

 

Here's a good study that looked into the allegations of overt racism. It found that, while there are very few indicators of overt racism per se, there are indications that racial motivations play a factor in the Tea Party.

 

http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/maher-tea-party-racism/

 

So it's not a stretch, by any means, to say a Black president's election spurred the creation of the Tea Party. It's been discussed, studied, and possibly concluded as such.

 

I'll say this - every Tea Party sympathizer I've spoken to in person has either hinted at or directly stated that Obama's race is a problem for them. Anecdotal, I know, but I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

[BigRedBuster]

I think this is a very difficult issue to ascertain. Here's why.

 

There is a racial aspect to the Tea Party now. It's very disturbing to me and, I would say that's been the case for most of Obama's term. It's a major reason why I have never associated myself with the Tea Party movement.

 

However, when specifically asked, did it START because of racism and a black President, I would have to say...no. It started because of taxes and people being upset due to the bail out of the mortgage industry.

[knapplc]

I didn't say it STARTED because of racism. Don't get confused. I said it started largely as a reaction to the affront of America electing a Black man president. That would be an issue of race, not racism. That's an important distinction.

 

I agree that overt racism has crept into the Tea Party today, but in that respect they're no different than Democrats or Republicans - there are racists everywhere.

 

 

EDIT - bolded and enlarged for the request for further explanation below. You can't ignore the explanation, then ask for further explanation.

[BigRedBuster]

I didn't say it STARTED because of racism. Don't get confused. I said it started largely as a reaction to the affront of America electing a Black man president.

I guess you will have to explain your comments further. If a group is started largely due to them not liking someone of a certain race......isn't that racism?

 

And.....this stance totally leaves out the actual reason it started and that was due to taxes and a revolt against the bailout.

[HuskerShark]

 

Just throwing this out there... Bin Laden didn't attack the world trade centers or Pentagon.

What do you mean by this?

 

Of course, he didn't "personally" attack them. The people who "attacked" on 9/11 all died as a result of the attacks. If that is your position, then I will assume you believe suicide-bombings should not be investigated and justice pursued because the attacker is already dead?

 

Or am I not following?

 

 

No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans.

[Guy Chamberlin]

In fairness, much of fear-mongering launched against Obama is identical to the right wing narrative against Bill Clinton and will be repeated against Hillary Clinton.

 

Obama's race certainly dialed things up for the overt racists and closet racists, but the obstructionism probably would have happened without it.

 

I don't think the financial bailout had nearly the galvanizing effect that the proposal of the Affordable Care Act did. Creeping Socialism was in the air and the administration was essentially going door to door to sell the ACA in town halls, where people who don't normally have a voice have a voice, and well-intentioned but uninformed citizens on the more extreme ends tend to monopolize the microphones. I honestly thought the town hall outcry caught the Republicans by surprise, but once the Tea Party coalesced around it they co-opted the Tea Party and ran with the full-scale obstructionism, financed by conservative interests and promoted by Fox News and others.

 

The irony, of course, is that the ACA wasn't socialized medicine. Single Payer Healthcare could be termed that -- and 60% of Americans liked the idea when it was explained to them -- but Obama had no intention of veering that far left. The ACA blueprint had been the Republican alternative to socialized healthcare for decades, written by and approved by the private for-profit healthcare insurance industry, with the Government merely acting as the middleman for the uninsured, while people happy with the way things were could largely keep things the way they were. Obama thought he had tricked Republicans by giving them national healthcare they had already endorsed. That turned out to be a mistake. Bereft of their own ideas and proposals, those early days of the ACA showed Republicans that simply opposing everything Obama proposed was a safe and simple course of action.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

However, so much can be accomplished by simply being a good representative and gaining favor around the world for what we want to accomplish.

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good.

 

 

Wow, I have to actually defend Bill Clinton on this topic, which I don't do often. I personally find the guy an immoral piece of crap, but he is 1000 times a better leader than Obama ever could be. In 1994 after the Republican Revolution, Clinton has the self awareness to look internally and declare the era of big govt was over. He also reached out to seek compromise and find middle ground, something Obama again refuses to do. He also helped mobilize a Democratic coalition after 12 years of GOP rule. Like Obama, I think his biggest failures as a POTUS were gutting our intelligence community and not taking the terror threat seriously enough.

 

 

In any other era, Obama would be considered a moderate Republican.

 

Ronald Reagan pushed through more big government social engineering than Obama has. Some people conveniently forget that.

 

And it is utterly ludicrous to blame Obama for not seeking middle ground and compromise given the blanket Republican obstructionism the Tea Party has foisted on the party.

 

With both Trump and Sanders benefitting from the "throw the bums out" sentiment, some forget just how responsible Tea Party obstructionists are for making the system even more dysfunctional and dislikable.

 

They are also responsible for a lot of the anti-Obama memes that get repeated until people think they're true. Most of them aren't.

 

As for your last statement: it was the Bush administration that ignored the memo "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." that included a specific warning about al Queda hijacking a commercial airliner, because Cheney and others did not want to accept any intelligence from the outgoing Clinton appointees.

 

The Obama administration has been far more accurate and successful in targeting and killing high level terrorists than their predecessors.

 

I know Fox News likes to freak people out because Obama avoids painting Islamic Terrorists with a broad brush, but as any student of terrorism knows, that's what ISIS wants him to do. The very purpose and only tool of terrorists is to get their much larger adversary to over-react.

 

 

Wow, I think the part in bold has to be the most laughable statement I've ever seen in this forum.

 

I recommend an open mind and a bit of history.

[knapplc]

No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans.

 

bin Laden took responsibility.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/30/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-11.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1362113/Bin-Laden-Yes-I-did-it.html

 

I think the world is pretty united in agreement that 9/11 was bin Laden's work. That leaves a couple of questions:

 

1) Why wouldn't the evidence from the 9/11 Commission, British intelligence and bin Laden's multiple claims of responsibility be enough to show that he did, in fact, order the attacks?

 

2) If it wasn't bin Laden, who was it? And why haven't they claimed responsibility?

[BigRedBuster]

 

No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans.

 

bin Laden took responsibility.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/30/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-11.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1362113/Bin-Laden-Yes-I-did-it.html

 

I think the world is pretty united in agreement that 9/11 was bin Laden's work. That leaves a couple of questions:

 

1) Why wouldn't the evidence from the 9/11 Commission, British intelligence and bin Laden's multiple claims of responsibility be enough to show that he did, in fact, order the attacks?

 

2) If it wasn't bin Laden, who was it? And why haven't they claimed responsibility?

 

I commend you to the highest level.

 

I read his post about...oh.....30 minutes ago and to tell you the truth, I have gone back three times just to make sure it read what I though I read and that he didn't correct something in the post that he didn't mean to say.

 

Since that hasn't happened....well.....I'm speechless.

 

You actually were able to think clearly after reading that.

 

You are a better man.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Just throwing this out there... Bin Laden didn't attack the world trade centers or Pentagon.

What do you mean by this?

 

Of course, he didn't "personally" attack them. The people who "attacked" on 9/11 all died as a result of the attacks. If that is your position, then I will assume you believe suicide-bombings should not be investigated and justice pursued because the attacker is already dead?

 

Or am I not following?

 

 

No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans.

 

 

I could be wrong, but is it possible you mean Saddam Hussein here and not bin Laden?

 

Intelligence immediately pointed to the al Queda Saudis and their leader, bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks, and later evidence certainly confirmed that.

 

The finger pointing you might be alluding to could be that within minutes of 9/11, Dick Cheney was asking if the attacks could be tied to Iraq and Hussein. Although there was no proof whatsoever Saddam was involved in 9/11, many players in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and unseat his regime. They were counting on Americans not knowing or caring about the difference between their Middle East madmen. They were right about that, wrong about pretty much every subsequent consequence.

[AR Husker Fan]

Indiana's Mike Pence 'In Play' as Possible Trump VP Pick

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is "in play" as a possible contender to be named Donald Trump's running mate at next month's GOP convention, sources familiar with the vice presidential search tell NBC News.

An individual knowledgeable of conversations about the decision tells NBC News that Pence was made aware several weeks ago through an intermediary that he was being considered for the VP slot.

[Danny Bateman]

Report: Gingrich, Christie Top Trump's VP List

 

[The Dude]

Oh man, Gingrich. Would have never guessed that guy was still alive.

[Moiraine]

IMO his best bet is to have a female VP not named Palin.

[TGHusker]

IMO his best bet is to have a female VP not named Palin.

He should smooth things over wt the NM governor and select her. My guess is that many don't want their future political career ruined by being tied to Trump.