• 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!

Has the election of a black POTUS led to more, no or less racsim in America?

Has the election of a black POTUS led to more, no or less racsim?

  • Having a black President has caused America to be more rasict

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • Having a black President has caused America to be less rasict

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Having a black President has exposed racism that was not as apparent prior to his election

    Votes: 18 62.1%

  • Total voters
    29
I think its simply elevated the temperature of the soup that is racism such that it bubbled, boiled and spilled out onto the stove. I believe the racists amongst us (those that saw blacks as a threat) previously believed blacks were in their place and not a threat. Now, they have to deal with the black that "stepped out of place". Kind of like the first black to join the country club stirs up a lot of native emotions in the country club membership.
 
We have a President and his entire staff that are incessant race-baiters. No, he and his administration have not been good for race relations. For one, he has essentially endorsed racism among African-Americans against others.
 
PS... I did not answer the poll because I don't think it is generically about having a "black" President. Rather, it is specifically about the conduct and words of President Obama and his administration. It is specific about him and his staff.
 
We have a President and his entire staff that are incessant race-baiters. No, he and his administration have not been good for race relations. For one, he has essentially endorsed racism among African-Americans against others.

Other than the Trayvon Martin case can you offer any specific examples? What might surprise some people is Obama has developed a reputation among many blacks as a President who refuses to address the concerns of an important and loyal constituency out of fears he'd be accused of doing exactly what you assert. Some of his most vocal critics have actually compared the things Bush and Clinton have done specifically addressing black constituent concerns to Obama's and how Obama hasn't come close. But I understand perception is reality often based on what we'd expect a black president to do even though he might not have. Another poster here expressed some disgust with Obama and Holder constantly "using te race card", of which I asked for examples ad he has yet to reply.

I ask you to exclude the Trayvon Martin case since I think those comments were misunderstood by some. Some people, including myself think his comments were directed toward non-blacks who have been for the most part unaware of the unique treatment blacks often face in efforts to foster understanding, and not to blacks intended to "bait" them into anger toward whites. But again, perception is reality especially if its a negative perception of someone we start out as identifying as a political foe.
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt that it's increased, basically due to the fact that he was essentially elected by white race apologists. That is, in and of itself, racist.
 
There's no doubt that it's increased, basically due to the fact that he was essentially elected by white race apologists. That is, in and of itself, racist.

You sound racist!
 
The correct poll answer was not included.

The election of a black President indicates that things have changed for the better in a relative sense over the last 50 years, as this NEVER would have happened as recent as 30 years ago, but the election in and of itself made no significant change in racism today.
 
Back in 2008 a popular political pundit cautioned that if Barack Obama were to be elected President, unlike claims it would lead to a less racially divided country, it would in fact lead to more racism.

At the time, I disagreed. I felt if Obama were to be elected, people with racial prejudices against blacks would see that blacks aren't that different than anyone else, are capable of leadership and posses the same intellectual faculties as anyone else all leading to a more harmonious racially diverse America less incumbered by fears, stereotypes and discrimination.

However, after hearing the pundit's assertions, I began to accept the idea that there was an outside chance we could see more racism but not because it didn't exist prior to the election of a black President but rather deep racist attitudes already existed but were suppressed and the election of a black President might bring those suppressed racist attitudes to the surface. At the time I thought even that would be a good thing since thinking any racist attitudes would be limited to speech, if its out in the open, we can discuss it, deal with it and help foster better understanding.

With the benefit of hindsight, what do you think? I for one, had no idea just how racist some of the people I considered friends and political allies actually are.

We've maintained the status quo.
 
One thing is people getting sick of the race card being played even when top government officials are black. In particular, these officials like Obama and Holder are adding fuel to the fire with BS they say.
My sentiments exactly my friend.
 
There's no doubt that it's increased, basically due to the fact that he was essentially elected by white race apologists. That is, in and of itself, racist.

...and, of course, one could argue that "in and of itself" is a racist comment... as perhaps the alternative to that statement was true: he was elected by people that believed he was the best candidate. I do believe that to be the case.

While I will acknowledge that people vote for candidates for inane reasons, including the guy that is the best looking or the guy they think they could have a beer with. Surely some voted for Obama because he was black; but surely still there were also a ton of people that voted against him because he was black.

Unless you have some study of voter motivations in the 2008 or 2012 elections relating to race, I suggest you stand down as we are only left with your impressions. Suggesting that someone is qualified or unqualified for job (or electable or unelectable) because of race (including stating he was only elected by apologists rather than on merit) is a statement you would expect of a racist.
 
Last edited:
...and, of course, one could argue that "in and of itself" is a racist comment... as perhaps the alternative to that statement was true: he was elected by people that believed he was the best candidate. I do believe that to be the case.

While I will acknowledge that people vote for candidates for inane reasons, including the guy that is the best looking or the guy they think they could have a beer with. Surely some voted for Obama because he was black; but surely still there were also a ton of people that voted against him because he was black.

Unless you have some study of how the voter motivations around his race, I suggest you stand down lest you appear racist.

Anyone who thinks that he was the "best candidate" is a whopping moron. He was a junior US Senator who had tennis shoes last longer than his position at the time, and a voting record that makes Ted Kennedy look like Strom Thurmond.

Understanding the reasoning behind the vote for him is Occam's Razor.
 
...and, of course, one could argue that "in and of itself" is a racist comment... as perhaps the alternative to that statement was true: he was elected by people that believed he was the best candidate. I do believe that to be the case.

I'm sure you don't discount the idea that people voted against him for being black. So I am unsure why you would assume the inverse is true asnd that some people did vote for him, simply due to being black. In fact, there were times that the Obama campaign even used such to their advantage. After all, the "change" meme is a lot less exciting when you're talking about a white triangulating centrist who's a career politician and having his campaign constructed by a guy who specializes in astroturfing

Make him black though, and you got change we can believe in~!!!

Suggesting that someone is qualified or unqualified for job (or electable or unelectable) because of race (including stating he was only elected by apologists rather than on merit) is a statement you would expect of a racist.

Not that I entirely agree with his sentiment, but how is such racist? Also, Obama's actual record and qualifications were rather sparse, to put it mildly. I mean, we are talking about Potus here, and the guy started his campaign with like a year in national office
 
Last edited:
I'd say "Having a black President has exposed racism that was not as apparent prior to his election".

I'm sure many liberals will say that it exposed more racisim that wasn't as apparent among many republicans/conservatives but quite frankly I see the opposite. More racism has been exposed on the liberal side. A lot of them kept saying in Obama's first term that the only reason that republicans/conservatives opposed Obama was because he was black but quite frankly that was and IS a lot of BS. They claimed this everytime (or most of the time) someone opposed Obama's POLICIES. And since then it has only gotten worse, especially with the travon/zimmerman case when Obama claimed that trayvon could have been his son (or later on after the verdict himself). That only fueled the racism even more.

Now I'm NOT saying that it didn't expose some racism that wasn't apparent on the republican/conservative side because it has. But fact of that matter is that it exposed even more on the liberal side because they hid it far more than republicans/conservatives.

And to cut some of the posters off that will try to argue what racism "actually is"....don't even bother because I won't respond to it. That arguement is nothing more than BS apologist crap that belongs so far down the sewer that it might as well be in another galaxy. Racism does not depend on who the majority race is or who has all the power. Racism is an individual thing and not a societal thing.
 
...and, of course, one could argue that "in and of itself" is a racist comment... as perhaps the alternative to that statement was true: he was elected by people that believed he was the best candidate. I do believe that to be the case.

I have no doubt that there were people that elected him because they thought he was the best candidate. I also have no doubt that there were people that elected him because of his race...both by blacks and whites and every other color in between.

While I will acknowledge that people vote for candidates for inane reasons, including the guy that is the best looking or the guy they think they could have a beer with. Surely some voted for Obama because he was black; but surely still there were also a ton of people that voted against him because he was black.

See folks this is what is called "twisting" and "shifting". In this case this is what happens when someone phrases a statement in such a way as to portray two things happening but one happening to a lesser degree and thereby excuseing it while trying to shift the "wrongness" (for lack of a better word atm) to something just as equally wrong by claiming that it happens far more. A common tactic for all sides really.

Unless you have some study of voter motivations in the 2008 or 2012 elections relating to race, I suggest you stand down as we are only left with your impressions. Suggesting that someone is qualified or unqualified for job (or electable or unelectable) because of race (including stating he was only elected by apologists rather than on merit) is a statement you would expect of a racist.

Bold: Actually I would disagree with this. Stating that doesn't mean that the person who said it is racist at all. It could be just an observation either because of fact, or personal experiance. Yes it could just be said because of racism...but it can be said for reasons other than racism.

Underlined: Yes, that would be racism.

Rest: No such study will ever be done in today's societal atmosphere. If such a study were to be done it would only lead to more charges of racism by both sides no matter how the study turned out or how perfectly it was done by a non-partisan group. Even if every single person in the entire US answered the questions 100% truthfully.
 
Apparently, in this country people are judged by the color of their skin. Barack Obama is labeled as 'black' because that's the color of his skin; however, the term 'black' in and of itself carries connotations, whether negative or positive, that also refer to the culture of the African American community. The truth is that Barack Obama is half-white so why is it that everyone refers to him as black? Is it because America is filled with people that tend to group other people by the color of their skin?
 
Apparently, in this country people are judged by the color of their skin. Barack Obama is labeled as 'black' because that's the color of his skin; however, the term 'black' in and of itself carries connotations, whether negative or positive, that also refer to the culture of the African American community. The truth is that Barack Obama is half-white so why is it that everyone refers to him as black? Is it because America is filled with people that tend to group other people by the color of their skin?

I refer to him as black because that is how he refers to himself as. :shrug:

And no, the term "black" does not carry ANY connotations. The connotations spring entirely from the person using it and the person interpreting it.
 
One thing is people getting sick of the race card being played even when top government officials are black. In particular, these officials like Obama and Holder are adding fuel to the fire with BS they say.

sound point
 
We have a President and his entire staff that are incessant race-baiters. No, he and his administration have not been good for race relations. For one, he has essentially endorsed racism among African-Americans against others.

Yeah, I don't see it.

Again, I've got black friends and coworkers, and I'm in Newark, NJ (52% Black/African American - easily the largest demographic) every working day of the year and other than traffic being dicked up for a couple days last week following the Zimmerman verdict I've neither been the target/victim of, nor even in any way inconvenienced by, any kind of "racial" incident. And I haven't heard of or from anyone who has.

You'd think that if the President and his administration were effectively sowing the seeds of racial discord then one of the "blackest" cities in America (16th largest as a function of % of population) would have seen an increase in racisim at least to the degree that I've have heard tell of it, even if I hadn't experienced it myself.

As with many things, I think this "the President is a race baiter" nonsense is really just an illusion invented by the far-right-wing idiotsphere.

Truth is, given his position as the "first Black president", President Obama has said shockingly little about race and what little he's said has been pretty muasured.
 
Yeah, I don't see it.

Again, I've got black friends and coworkers, and I'm in Newark, NJ (52% Black/African American - easily the largest demographic) every working day of the year and other than traffic being dicked up for a couple days last week following the Zimmerman verdict I've neither been the target/victim of, nor even in any way inconvenienced by, any kind of "racial" incident. And I haven't heard of or from anyone who has.

You'd think that if the President and his administration were effectively sowing the seeds of racial discord then one of the "blackest" cities in America (16th largest as a function of % of population) would have seen an increase in racisim at least to the degree that I've have heard tell of it, even if I hadn't experienced it myself.

As with many things, I think this "the President is a race baiter" nonsense is really just an illusion invented by the far-right-wing idiotsphere.

Truth is, given his position as the "first Black president", President Obama has said shockingly little about race and what little he's said has been pretty muasured.

Holder has been more of a problem racially than Obama has.
 
Having a black President has caused America to be more rasict

Flawed poll.

Obama's race hasn't had much effect of the climate of race relations in our culture.

His politics and agenda most certainly have.

That difference is actually quite important to the whole point.
 
Flawed poll.

Obama's race hasn't had much effect of the climate of race relations in our culture.

His politics and agenda most certainly have.

The difference is there is actually quite important to the whole point.

I have no doubt that for some - you are correct. I also have no doubt for others, the race of the president is a major driver of their hatred for him. If one is going to look at THE WHOLE POINT - to use your phrase - lets look at all of it. To pretend that there is not some hatred of Obama because of his race is to play ostrich.
 
I have no doubt that for some - you are correct. I also have no doubt for others, the race of the president is a major driver of their hatred for him. If one is going to look at THE WHOLE POINT - to use your phrase - lets look at all of it.

Like who?
 
Like who?

I distinctly remember back ot the original campaign with all the racist signs - Obama as a voodoo witch doctor - Obama as a monkey - Obama as some troglodyte - that were at GOP rallies. And it has not gone away. Some of the tea party is fueled by this as well.

But lets be serious here - are you actually taking the position that there is NO opposition to Obama based on racial animosity? Is that your position?

just google - Obama nigger - and you will get over 2 million results including some very vile stuff. To deny its existence is to take a step or two into the twilight zone.
 
I distinctly remember back ot the original campaign with all the racist signs - Obama as a voodoo witch doctor - Obama as a monkey - Obama as some troglodyte - that were at GOP rallies. And it has not gone away. Some of the tea party is fueled by this as well.

But lets be serious here - are you actually taking the position that there is NO opposition to Obama based on racial animosity? Is that your position?

just google - Obama nigger - and you will get over 2 million results including some very vile stuff. To deny its existence is to take a step or two into the twilight zone.

No. I will not google that. But i bet "bush monkey" yields a multitude as well.

Presidents have for as long as i can remember have had to withstand disrespectful treatment from idiots. Why should Obamas mockery be treated as special or different? Because of race?

As I often see you do, you have tried to change my position:
Obama's race hasn't had much effect of the climate of race relations in our culture. His politics and agenda most certainly have.
Into
there is NO opposition to Obama based on racial animosity
and i will not engage you when you twist my position into a flimsy strawman.
 
Back
Top Bottom