2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama Snubs NAACP?
Watching TYT tonight and they did a section on the President not attending the NAACP - Biden is going in his place. Romney will be there.
Apparently Valerie Jarrett thinks if Obama goes it will be bad for his image.
I think this is terrible - it really doesn't matter what the right thinks - no matter what the POTUS does they will continue to denigrate and decry his actions.
But to snub an important part of the base - sorry this is so wrong. President Obama get out there and mix with every person of color/culture/race you can - the GOPT will not do this - you are a president of the people and should support and show yourself with the people.
I hope that there is more to this story because that just seems wrong. (not your post Smilo - his not going)
elleng
(130,974 posts)comes from where?
DOUBT THIS!
When is it? Next week; POTUS in Iowa, I believe.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/biden-to-naacp-convention-128135.html
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)it's no big thing. We're sorry if it bothers YOU.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I don't think Bill Clinton went every year either.
Somehow I don't think anyone is too worried about Barack Obama being seen as insensitive to the concerns of black people.
Response to Smilo (Original post)
Post removed
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)mentioned, he's attended every year. But thank the guys for trying to make an issue where none exists.
"Smilo"? Any relation to Tavis?
babylonsister
(171,070 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)I wonder if he bothered to mention that the president will address The Urban League two weeks after the NAACP conference? I highly doubt it. The last Democratic president attended in his second term, in 1996 & 1998, and I don't think any of us questioned Bill Clinton's committment to the issues we cared about. This is much ado about nothing.
OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Ivywoods55
(131 posts)there are many in our own community that are whining already that this President has pandered to every segment of America, the whites, the white college kids, the Hispanics, the Gay community, the military, but when it comes to our community he turns his back. I just argued with a young lady on HuffPost last week who say she will not be voting for this President because many young Blacks feel as though he has not addressed ANY Black issues. I hate to say this but he is asking for trouble, the community will not be too happy with this. Mark my word, I pray that I am wrong, but I do not believe I am, especially after Mitt says he is attending. Just as Boehner & Co. know white people, I know my people, and many will be angry about this.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)And when you say "many", I think you overestimate the followings of Tavis & Dr. West. The young lady you "argued with on HuffPost" is not representative. Can you ask the young lady which issues the president can address uniliaterally, that have impacted the AA community?
If you're indeed a supporter, your job is to educate, not be party to the gross misinformation that permeates the internet. You should also tell your friend at HuffPo, that if it's an image thing with her, she can catch the president's address to The Urban League two weeks after the NAACP conference. That is if she's actually interested in hearing the president address black America. However, I don't think that's really her issue.
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)connection, with and to, the conversation that was being discussed, that is if you are indeed an African American. I am not anti anyone or anything unless it is a greedy selfish Republican. I am informed concerning the issues, I knock on doors in my area, and also phone bank, trying to educate individuals about the policies of this President. As to your other statement, I have followed West and Smiley for some time now and know that they are the negative, but sometimes thought provoking individuals that have tried to spread discord among MY community. I am under NO illusion, like some folks are, that THERE is no anger among Black folks who think this President has ignored the community. I do not have to be sold, I am all in, but for SOME folks to think that there is not a silent wind of discord a'blowning is to stick their head in the sand and leave it there. I might add, that the YOUNG lady I was "arguing" with about her support said she was a college student, as well as, a 2008 Obama supporter who was not as "enthused" about this President as before. I read her the riot and the importance of becoming informed and voting for this President. I stressed that it would be in her best interest, especially as a college student. I know who I am voting for, but our youth must be educated, and also come out and vote, and I do not want this to be an issue.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)has to walk, it's his AA supporters. There are a handful of folks, in every demographic, whose main job seems to be to piss and moan. Hey, it's what critics do. I get that. However, like Tavis & West, the young woman with whom you spoke is a rare exception, not the rule.
As we all know, if you want to truly gauge opinion in the black community, go to church, make an appointment with your hairdresser, or your barber. Internet "chats" are unreliable to say the least, because that young "black" lady could turn out to be a fat white dude, living in his Mom's basement. Know what I mean?
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)Understanding is affirmed!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)That is sad it reminds me of a term you use to hear;
Peanut Gallery.
A peanut gallery is an audience that heckles the performer. The term originated in the days of vaudeville as a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater; the least expensive snack served at the theater would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to show their disapproval. The phrases "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name.
The NAACP is interested in only one thing from the President at this point, getting reelection. TYT is only interested in getting themselves promoted.
from the urban dictionary
george bush's presidential cabinet
or
a group of (sometimes stupid) people that make comments on something they are watching or listening to; spectators with a verbal opinion
That might be unfair to TYT.
They could be off-base on this one, but it's their job to examine political events and situations like this from a progressive point of view, and to ask some probing questions - including of Democrats.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Rosanna Lopez
(308 posts)As a Liberal, do you not feel the criticism of Obama is justified?
He is very much a centrist, not a progressive or a liberal, and he has pursued an aggressive pro-war policy of the military-industrial complex and is very much a Hawk.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)DOMA, came out in support of same-sex marriage, and MANY other things. He does NOT want a war with Iran (unlike Romney). He is very much NOT a hawk and not as you and the TYT describe.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)gross overstatement. Pres. Obama hasn't done anything militarily that we weren't forewarned about. He always maintained that he was never anti-war, but anti-"stupid"-war. If he were the "hawk" you claimed he was, we would've hit Iran, N. Korea, and possibly wiped out the Syrian army by now.
Pres. Obama is no warmonger, and hyperbole won't make it so. And I wouldn't hold Cenk's "liberal" credentials up to any prolonged scrutiny if I were you. Much like Arianna & Ed Schultz, he's a former Republican, who found there's money to be made in "conversion".
jenmito
(37,326 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)without being a Republican.
I know you don't like his criticisms of the President, but all of Cenk's criticisms of Obama are of the "he's not progressive enough" variety. Not at all what you'd expect from a Republican.
In fact, if Cenk Uygur is a Republican, then he's either an awful Republican, or an awfully progressive Republican (oh yeah, and smart enough to fool Al Gore).
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)concerns, but he wants the president to be fucking superman! Again, concern noted.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Wrong, not Republican
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)or rather, questioned Cenk's conversion from conservative to liberal, implied he converted for profit. That post was what prompted this sub-thread, not your post.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Like I said, a so-so "actor" like Cenk can convince "a few people" of anything. It's all about illusion. Take Arianna for instance, she screwed a whole bunch of folks with her liberal passion, and there was nothing progressive about what she did to the many writers she used to promote herself, and make tons of $$$$. My "personal" feeling is that Cenk's no different, and a fraud.
"He's not progressive enough" is a scripted piece of hyperbole which endears Cenk to an increasingly small, but loud slice of the democratic left. The president's approval among liberal Democrats normally hovers in the mid to high 80's. So it's easy to see who's winning that argument.
The good news is that most of America neither knows nor gives a shit what the fuck a Cenk is.
demwing
(16,916 posts)It looks very friendly, but I don't trust it
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)why you gotta be like that?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Whether or not you trust your own instincts isn't my issue. I didn't intentionally set out to be rude, but if that's how you perceived it, I bear no responsibility for that.
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)Republicans. I think Marco M. of Kos used to be a Republican, also, but on him I might be wrong. There are a few pundits that use to wear the Republicans brand who say they have crossed over, but all they bring to the Democratic table, many times, is complaints, discord and division among our own.
demwing
(16,916 posts)you don't like the criticism, and I get that as well, but none of that makes Cenk a Republican, it just makes him wrong.
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)no difference concerning what he says or may say. I work to educate people concerning the policies of this President and how they are helping to strengthen our Nation, that is my responsibility as an informed Obama supporter. I could care less about Cenk or any other talking head, that is what they are paid to do, TALK. And as to them being reformed "Republicans", me thinks they are sometimes "wolves" in sheep clothing, and yes, I do know that people can and do change. It is their actions that are of concern to me, especially as election day approaches.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)And frankly, I'm sick of it. Yes, hold the president accountable, but get him reelected as well.
Again, their concern is noted.
Now, let's get to work...
grantcart
(53,061 posts)stand alone against the evil in the world, including that of the weak and troubled Obama.
Next to Rachel Maddow they look like junior high students.
I find that these guys who start out as Republicans, like Dylan whats his name, all end up in the same boorish 'they are all the same club"
Perhaps you were unaware of Cenks' roots:
While in college, he wrote a column in The Daily Pennsylvanian criticizing affirmative action recruiting at the university and suggesting that all students should be "judged on their merits rather than their physical characteristics."[10] He supported the pro-life position on the abortion issue, criticized the radical aspects of the feminist movement, and felt Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was treated unjustly during his Senate confirmation hearings.[15] He also criticized organized religion as based on mythology and as a divisive force between peoples.[16]
He has stated that he worked for a time for Republican former New York Congressman Joe DioGuardi.[17] and voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election and for Bob Dole in 1996.
Uygur supported the Gulf War of 19901991, and supported the War in Afghanistan from its beginning in 2001 until 2009though he has strongly opposed the Iraq War.[5]
Uygur expressed denial of the Armenian Genocide in letters published by The Daily Pennsylvanian in 1991 and Salon in 1999, one of which (titled "Historical Fact or Falsehood?" in he stated ""The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place." [18][19] Uygur's letters later drew criticism from the west-coast affiliate of the Armenian National Committee of America, the California Armenian American Democrats, and other members of Armenian-American community, who subsequently protested during his speech at the California Democratic Party's 2012 state convention with the support of Charles Calderon and Janice Hahn.[20][21][22]
The reason for his fall can be found in my tagline.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Is Barack Obama snubbing young children?
Robb
(39,665 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's all this is.
If the race isn't close, you don't need 500 channels of 24/7 pundits.
Ivywoods55
(131 posts)I hate Pathetico (Politico), it is nothing but a right-wing garbage dump, who extolls on the "virtues of the Mitten" every second of the day. Right wing hacks, doing right-wing hackery!
CBHagman
(16,986 posts)See this link:
http://www.thisismyvote.org/
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are many things he fails to attend every day. He can be in one place at one time. Why shouldn't Biden go?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Although dramatically labeled SNUBBED!!, TYT makes it clear in the following clip they are only speculating. Your of the president is unfounded.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Yes that is unfair, but so is yours.