[81alum]

I would posit that there is a difference between a candidate and an incumbent President.  The latter should, ideally, try at least to present the pretense of representing all the American people.

The "cling to guns and religion" comment that you referenced was, in my opinion, Obama's most divisive comment and I was disappointed in him for making it.  However, he made that remark in April 2008 as a candidate in a tough race against Hillary, not as President, and so by your logic he should get the benefit of the doubt.

When I was a kid growing up my democratic FDR-loving  father caught me badmouthing Richard Nixon.  "Have respect for the office, even if you don't like the man" he said.  "The President is the President of ALL of us.  We lost the last election, and we owe him our respect until there is another."

That is an attitude that has faded, not least because of Richard Nixon's actions.  But if we all (including members of Congress) had a bit more respect for the office and what it symbolized--it would go a fair ways to dampening the partisan spirit that seems to be raging in America. 

[81alum]

I would posit that there is a difference between a candidate and an incumbent President.  The latter should, ideally, try at least to present the pretense of representing all the American people.

The "cling to guns and religion" comment that you referenced was, in my opinion, Obama's most divisive comment and I was disappointed in him for making it.  However, he made that remark in April 2008 as a candidate in a tough race against Hillary, not as President, and so by your logic he should get the benefit of the doubt.

When I was a kid growing up my democratic FDR-loving  father caught me badmouthing Richard Nixon.  "Have respect for the office, even if you don't like the man" he said.  "The President is the President of ALL of us.  We lost the last election, and we owe him our respect until there is another."

That is an attitude that has faded, not least because of Richard Nixon's actions.  But if we all (including members of Congress) had a bit more respect for the office and what it symbolized--it would go a fair ways to dampening the partisan spirit that seems to be raging in America. 

[81alum]

Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.

[81alum]

Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.

[FarmDad.01]

"You didn't build that."

To the multitudes who criticized that sentence spoken by Obama, here's Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's 2010 rejoinder:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Any disagreement?

And actually some people did get rich on their own -- like the Koch Bros and Donald Trump, who inherited wealth.

In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros, a leftist Hungarian-born Jew who, after being graduated by the London School of Economics was reduced being a traveling salesman in Wales, immigrated to America in 1956 with little but a promised Wall Street job. And megainvestor Warren Buffett, no man-the-barricades lefty and whose early life was decidedly middle-class, has decried paying less in taxes, percentage-wise, than his lowliest employees, and called for greater equity.

My final response to devisiveness is: Please define the cohorts who are being divided.

[FarmDad.01]

"You didn't build that."

To the multitudes who criticized that sentence spoken by Obama, here's Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's 2010 rejoinder:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Any disagreement?

And actually some people did get rich on their own -- like the Koch Bros and Donald Trump, who inherited wealth.

In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros, a leftist Hungarian-born Jew who, after being graduated by the London School of Economics was reduced being a traveling salesman in Wales, immigrated to America in 1956 with little but a promised Wall Street job. And megainvestor Warren Buffett, no man-the-barricades lefty and whose early life was decidedly middle-class, has decried paying less in taxes, percentage-wise, than his lowliest employees, and called for greater equity.

My final response to devisiveness is: Please define the cohorts who are being divided.

[Mick]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156893#msg156893 date=1456003669]
Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.
[/quote]

He couldn't say "You didn't build that entirely on your own" because the very next sentence was "Someone else made that happen."  So the two sentences that he actually said, taken together, read as  "You didn't build that.  Someone else made that happen."  It removes any credit from the person who actually made it happen, the business owner or creator or inventor.  It eliminates their skill, hard work, market perceptions, ideas and, yes, luck and credits all to people who worked in the infrastructure.  Yes, what they do and did is important, and goodness knows we'll be paying their public job pensions until we're bleeding from the ears.  President Obama gave core credit for the giants who drove the American economy to the people who support it, and don't drive it.  He's a mesmerizing speaker, I don't think he garbled it at all, I think he said precisely what he meant to say.  There's a lot more voters, err, people who are part of the infrastructure than who build businesses.

[Mick]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156893#msg156893 date=1456003669]
Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.
[/quote]

He couldn't say "You didn't build that entirely on your own" because the very next sentence was "Someone else made that happen."  So the two sentences that he actually said, taken together, read as  "You didn't build that.  Someone else made that happen."  It removes any credit from the person who actually made it happen, the business owner or creator or inventor.  It eliminates their skill, hard work, market perceptions, ideas and, yes, luck and credits all to people who worked in the infrastructure.  Yes, what they do and did is important, and goodness knows we'll be paying their public job pensions until we're bleeding from the ears.  President Obama gave core credit for the giants who drove the American economy to the people who support it, and don't drive it.  He's a mesmerizing speaker, I don't think he garbled it at all, I think he said precisely what he meant to say.  There's a lot more voters, err, people who are part of the infrastructure than who build businesses.

[BurgXXIII]

"You didn't build that."
In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros

Maybe not the best choice to make your point. George Soros made his money off of arbitrage, which is about the least socially redeeming practice you could possibly come up with.

[BurgXXIII]

"You didn't build that."
In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros

Maybe not the best choice to make your point. George Soros made his money off of arbitrage, which is about the least socially redeeming practice you could possibly come up with.

[Mick]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=14611.msg156899#msg156899 date=1456011477]
"You didn't build that."
In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros

Maybe not the best choice to make your point. George Soros made his money off of arbitrage, which is about the least socially redeeming practice you could possibly come up with.
[/quote]

He's an inside trader too.  Just FYI.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/s...tion/?_r=0

[Mick]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=14611.msg156899#msg156899 date=1456011477]
"You didn't build that."
In contrast, conservative boogieman George Soros

Maybe not the best choice to make your point. George Soros made his money off of arbitrage, which is about the least socially redeeming practice you could possibly come up with.
[/quote]

He's an inside trader too.  Just FYI.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/s...tion/?_r=0

[burger]

But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.

[burger]

But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156889#msg156889 date=1456000057]
But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.
[/quote]

I did not say Obama was supposed to "eliminate racism". I said I am disappointed that he has not helped to heal it. And I believe as our first bi-racial President he was in a unique position to do so. And instead things are worse. And while many of us might have some prejudice in us, we as a nation have made brobdingnagian progress, so it is not like this is something that is inherent and cant be improved upon. Unfortunately the opportunity that Pres. Obama had was largely wasted, and while I dont think he gets all the blame, I think he gets a lot of it. Maybe he will choose to devote more energy to this area when he becomes a private citizen. I hope so because I believe he has the ability to make a difference.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156889#msg156889 date=1456000057]
But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.
[/quote]

I did not say Obama was supposed to "eliminate racism". I said I am disappointed that he has not helped to heal it. And I believe as our first bi-racial President he was in a unique position to do so. And instead things are worse. And while many of us might have some prejudice in us, we as a nation have made brobdingnagian progress, so it is not like this is something that is inherent and cant be improved upon. Unfortunately the opportunity that Pres. Obama had was largely wasted, and while I dont think he gets all the blame, I think he gets a lot of it. Maybe he will choose to devote more energy to this area when he becomes a private citizen. I hope so because I believe he has the ability to make a difference.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=14611.msg156897#msg156897 date=1456008579]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156893#msg156893 date=1456003669]
Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.
[/quote]

He couldn't say "You didn't build that entirely on your own" because the very next sentence was "Someone else made that happen."  So the two sentences that he actually said, taken together, read as  "You didn't build that.  Someone else made that happen."  It removes any credit from the person who actually made it happen, the business owner or creator or inventor.  It eliminates their skill, hard work, market perceptions, ideas and, yes, luck and credits all to people who worked in the infrastructure.  Yes, what they do and did is important, and goodness knows we'll be paying their public job pensions until we're bleeding from the ears.  President Obama gave core credit for the giants who drove the American economy to the people who support it, and don't drive it.  He's a mesmerizing speaker, I don't think he garbled it at all, I think he said precisely what he meant to say.  There's a lot more voters, err, people who are part of the infrastructure than who build businesses.
[/quote]
Unless by "that" he was referring to the infrastructure of the previous phrase, which I think is likely.  It actually makes the whole quote more plausible.  If that is what he meant, it would have been clearer to have said "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build the roads and bridges that your business depends on. Somebody else made that happen..."  Public speakers drop phrases from their planned speeches all the time...even master "teleprompteurs" like Obama.  The important thing is to understand what he meant.  And whether my dropped-phrase theory is right or wrong, the whole context is pretty clear.  He was trying to make "self made entrepreneurs" realize that their businesses and achievements depended in part on the social fabric.

And that is why the remark was divisive, I think.  Ever since the Horatio Alger series in the late nineteenth C American political culture has tended to stress individual achievement rather than collective achievement.  Obama was indeed articulating a view that is unpopular in America and is more accepted in European society--and underneath the twisting of the quote out of context lay that basic conflict.  Personally, I think he is right, but attempting to turn back 130 years of a particular view of "The American Dream" was probably foolish.

To bring all this back to SPORTS???? I guess I should ask:  do you think Americans pay more attention to individual achievement in sports or in collective (team) achievements?  Don't we at Stanford usually applaud those athletes who credit their team for helping them succeed?  And don't we often criticize those egotists who make achievements all about themselves?

By the way, he also could have said "If you've got a business, you need to understand that it depends on the sacrifices of past veterans who have kept this country free."  That is also a social contribution but one that the some on the right are more comfortable acknowledging than expenditures on infrastructure or education.  He probably should have.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=14611.msg156897#msg156897 date=1456008579]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156893#msg156893 date=1456003669]
Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."

That comment was not artfully made, but largely taken out of context.  Here is the context:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It would have been less divisive if he had said "You didn't build that entirely on your own" so he should get some blame.  But the four sentences leading up to that infamous phrase profoundly changes its meaning.  To say that individual achievement in America depends upon underlying community support is a far cry from demeaning individual achievement altogether.  And then it is also probable that "you didn't build that" referenced the roads and bridges that a business depends upon, not the business itself, although you would never know that from the isolated phrase.  Either way, he garbled the message.
[/quote]

He couldn't say "You didn't build that entirely on your own" because the very next sentence was "Someone else made that happen."  So the two sentences that he actually said, taken together, read as  "You didn't build that.  Someone else made that happen."  It removes any credit from the person who actually made it happen, the business owner or creator or inventor.  It eliminates their skill, hard work, market perceptions, ideas and, yes, luck and credits all to people who worked in the infrastructure.  Yes, what they do and did is important, and goodness knows we'll be paying their public job pensions until we're bleeding from the ears.  President Obama gave core credit for the giants who drove the American economy to the people who support it, and don't drive it.  He's a mesmerizing speaker, I don't think he garbled it at all, I think he said precisely what he meant to say.  There's a lot more voters, err, people who are part of the infrastructure than who build businesses.
[/quote]
Unless by "that" he was referring to the infrastructure of the previous phrase, which I think is likely.  It actually makes the whole quote more plausible.  If that is what he meant, it would have been clearer to have said "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build the roads and bridges that your business depends on. Somebody else made that happen..."  Public speakers drop phrases from their planned speeches all the time...even master "teleprompteurs" like Obama.  The important thing is to understand what he meant.  And whether my dropped-phrase theory is right or wrong, the whole context is pretty clear.  He was trying to make "self made entrepreneurs" realize that their businesses and achievements depended in part on the social fabric.

And that is why the remark was divisive, I think.  Ever since the Horatio Alger series in the late nineteenth C American political culture has tended to stress individual achievement rather than collective achievement.  Obama was indeed articulating a view that is unpopular in America and is more accepted in European society--and underneath the twisting of the quote out of context lay that basic conflict.  Personally, I think he is right, but attempting to turn back 130 years of a particular view of "The American Dream" was probably foolish.

To bring all this back to SPORTS???? I guess I should ask:  do you think Americans pay more attention to individual achievement in sports or in collective (team) achievements?  Don't we at Stanford usually applaud those athletes who credit their team for helping them succeed?  And don't we often criticize those egotists who make achievements all about themselves?

By the way, he also could have said "If you've got a business, you need to understand that it depends on the sacrifices of past veterans who have kept this country free."  That is also a social contribution but one that the some on the right are more comfortable acknowledging than expenditures on infrastructure or education.  He probably should have.

[CornFed]

I do not think that the push back is related to a part of the reference being related to roads and bridges.  I don't think there are any folks pushing real hard to get the government out of the infrastructure business.  Now, if the discussion movers to the Davis-Bacon Act .  .  .  .  .

People like to refer to dog whistles.  This is a liberal form of such.  Diminish the achievement of the individual.  Imbue community with qualities that make any positive contribution and ignore all the regulations and roadblocks that are put in the way by "the community", which is code for government. 

There is a core role for government.  We have for many decades been expanding that role to the point that many of the tasks that government has undertaken now impede activity and progress.  If we aspire overall to the standards set by Europe, I think we have set the bar too low

[CornFed]

I do not think that the push back is related to a part of the reference being related to roads and bridges.  I don't think there are any folks pushing real hard to get the government out of the infrastructure business.  Now, if the discussion movers to the Davis-Bacon Act .  .  .  .  .

People like to refer to dog whistles.  This is a liberal form of such.  Diminish the achievement of the individual.  Imbue community with qualities that make any positive contribution and ignore all the regulations and roadblocks that are put in the way by "the community", which is code for government. 

There is a core role for government.  We have for many decades been expanding that role to the point that many of the tasks that government has undertaken now impede activity and progress.  If we aspire overall to the standards set by Europe, I think we have set the bar too low

[Rally]

It is fascinating that two seemingly unrelated debates here revolve around the same thing.  The Founders' intent re judicial review and Obama's intent when he made his "you didn't build that" comment.  In each case each side is adamant they they understand the "true" intent.  I know you think you understand what you think I meant, but what you think you heard me say isn't what I meant.

[Rally]

It is fascinating that two seemingly unrelated debates here revolve around the same thing.  The Founders' intent re judicial review and Obama's intent when he made his "you didn't build that" comment.  In each case each side is adamant they they understand the "true" intent.  I know you think you understand what you think I meant, but what you think you heard me say isn't what I meant.

[burger]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156904#msg156904 date=1456012669]
[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156889#msg156889 date=1456000057]
But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.
[/quote]

I did not say Obama was supposed to "eliminate racism". I said I am disappointed that he has not helped to heal it. And I believe as our first bi-racial President he was in a unique position to do so. And instead things are worse. And while many of us might have some prejudice in us, we as a nation have made of exceedingly large proportions progress, so it is not like this is something that is inherent and cant be improved upon. Unfortunately the opportunity that Pres. Obama had was largely wasted, and while I dont think he gets all the blame, I think he gets a lot of it. Maybe he will choose to devote more energy to this area when he becomes a private citizen. I hope so because I believe he has the ability to make a difference.
[/quote]

I still find your entire argument ridiculous.  I'd challenge to name three concrete things that Obama could have done to heal racial issues.  I can't think of anything.

Also, there is no evidence for your statement that things have gotten worse--it's just an unfounded opinion.  The Black Lives Matter protests are an attempt by a group of people frequently MURDERED by police to have their rights protected.  Those protests are an attempt to make things better, not evidence of a breakdown of black-white relation.

This is just another example of ridiculous expectations that the right wing has for Obama.  He's just one person.  Being black or mixed race does not give him magical powers to heal the country.

[burger]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156904#msg156904 date=1456012669]
[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156889#msg156889 date=1456000057]
But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

I've heard this argument before, and I think that it is completely divorced from reality.  One big problem with race in this country (there are many "sub-problems," and it would take days to address them all) is that there are a lot of racist people.  Studies, including some by Stanford folks, have shown this over and over, and I am too lazy to get all the links, but the evidence is overwhelming.  How was Obama supposed to eliminate racism?  How was he supposed to make people of any race who have negative attitudes towards other races stop?  I think that racism is, in part at least, a product of human nature, and expecting Obama to somehow transcend human nature is the height of folly.

The "failure to heal the racial divide" argument is a farce.  Why was it Obama's responsibility to heal the racial divide?  We've had lots of previous presidents of both parties--didn't they have some responsibility, too?  Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids?  How about churches and religious institutions and schools?  Expecting one person to solve a problem that has existed for millenia is ridiculous.
[/quote]

I did not say Obama was supposed to "eliminate racism". I said I am disappointed that he has not helped to heal it. And I believe as our first bi-racial President he was in a unique position to do so. And instead things are worse. And while many of us might have some prejudice in us, we as a nation have made of exceedingly large proportions progress, so it is not like this is something that is inherent and cant be improved upon. Unfortunately the opportunity that Pres. Obama had was largely wasted, and while I dont think he gets all the blame, I think he gets a lot of it. Maybe he will choose to devote more energy to this area when he becomes a private citizen. I hope so because I believe he has the ability to make a difference.
[/quote]

I still find your entire argument ridiculous.  I'd challenge to name three concrete things that Obama could have done to heal racial issues.  I can't think of anything.

Also, there is no evidence for your statement that things have gotten worse--it's just an unfounded opinion.  The Black Lives Matter protests are an attempt by a group of people frequently MURDERED by police to have their rights protected.  Those protests are an attempt to make things better, not evidence of a breakdown of black-white relation.

This is just another example of ridiculous expectations that the right wing has for Obama.  He's just one person.  Being black or mixed race does not give him magical powers to heal the country.