Wake up, Black America!!
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#23 Feb 3, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>but it is well beyond me what was in the minds of American voters to relect this man to a second term.
__________

Obama administrations other policies. Which helped keep the coalition together. Which helped keep the non Hispanic Whites who voted for him in 2008, still on the Obama team.------

4. Obama administration bailing out the United States automobile industry.

5. Obama administration bailing out the United States automobile unions.

This kept the non Hispanic White male union leaders & members on the side of the Obama administration.

Non Hispanic White women who are the wives & girlfriends of the non Hispanic White male union leaders & members.-----

Since their husbands &/or boyfriends were bailed out, they were also grateful.

This kept the non Hispanic White women who are the wives & girlfriends of the non Hispanic White male union leaders & members.------ On the side of the Obama administration.

So, in the lead up to the election of 2012.------ It is no surprise that the Democrat Obama administration was able to maintain their coalition. The same coalition which elected him back in November, 2008.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#24 Feb 3, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you that race relations in the States seem to have gotten worse. It isn't any one factor but there definitely does seem to be a "taking of sides".
__________

Keisha, you are 150% correct.

In the United States, the divide & dichotomy is between African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves) & White-Americans.

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are being given "Honorary White Status" in the United States.

2000 census.------- Non Hispanic Whites were 63% of the United States population.

2010 census.------ It asked Hispanics what race they were. The very overwhelming majority of Hispanics listed their race as White.

Because of this, this boosted White-Americans population up to 72.7%.

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are being elevated & advanced in this nation. AT THE EXPENSE OF African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

Here is a link which shows a very small aspect of this dynamic at work.------

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_blacks_... .

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are viewed as being a racial buffer class. AGAINST African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are being given "Honorary White Status" in the United States.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#25 Feb 3, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you that race relations in the States seem to have gotten worse. It isn't any one factor but there definitely does seem to be a "taking of sides".
__________

Other forms of social engineering in place. AGAINST African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).--------

Blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa are being given "Pseudo Honorary White Status" in the United States.

1965.------- When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was crafted & passed.

1965 till now.--------- Many blacks from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa came to the United States. They had to classify as black. Or, as African American.

But, this is changing.

Because blacks from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa have very much been encouraged to seek SEPARATE classification. DIFFERENT from African American.

Blacks from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa haven't received the separate classification yet. But, in due time, they will.

Once this happens, this will even FURTHER fracture & fragment the African American "community" even more.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#26 Feb 3, 2014
Keisha-J.--------

Other forms of social engineering in place. AGAINST African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).-------

Blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa are being elevated & advanced in the United States. AT THE EXPENSE OF African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

Examples which show this.-------

1. Many American businesses are phasing out their African American (Descendants of black American slaves) employees.

For laborers who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa.

2. Many (If not most) of the United States Universities are accepting & admitting blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa.

IN PLACE OF African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

This is especially happening at the United States Ivy League Universities.

Blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa are viewed as being a buffer class. AGAINST African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

Blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa are being given a form of "Psuedo Honorary White Status" in the United States.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#27 Feb 5, 2014
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Mind if I ask, do you think that Hillary was more qualified than Republican John McCain?
If so, why?
Before the 2007 Democratic Party primary.------ The rules were changed. From the winner take all (Regarding American states). To proportional.
Because of this, Hillary lost the Democratic Party primary.
Had the rules been kept, Hillary Clinton would have won the 2007 Democratic Party primary. Hillary probably would have won the November, 2008, presidential election.
Wow! You have overwhelmed me with your knowledge.
To answer your question: I don't know if Hillary was more qualified than John McCain. Probably not, given McCain's experience. However, after 8 years of Republican government under George Bush, I truly believe the American people wanted a complete change. They were fed up with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which they saw as Bush's wars. And they were fed up with Wall Street for having gotten them into an economic mess that the Bush administration seemed to make worse by appointing Henry Paulson (a Wall Street insider) as Treasury Secretary and throwing tons of taxpayers' dollar at the problem. Yes, the money thrown at GM was deemed money well-spent (that's up for debate), but the money thrown at Wall Street was seen to go right into the pockets of undeserving CEOs. So, the American people, not surprisingly, wanted a complete and thorough change. They wanted someone quite the opposite to Big Business, someone who told them that he would get them out of two unpopular wars - in short, Obama - inexperienced, left-wing, and full of social promises .. just what seemed to be needed at the time.
I've gone on and on, as usual. However, McCain might have been the most qualified to run the country but he didn't stand a chance at being elected - for all the reasons I've given above. Yes, Hillary, if she had been the Democratic candidate, surely would have won the presidency.
I didn't know about the rule changes in the Democratic Party primary.
I like to think that as an outsider looking in, I have a perspective that many Americans may not have. And, as I've written, the one aspect of that 2008 election which jumps out at me is the racist aspect. It's true, as you've said, that past black candidates have not enjoyed the black vote for whatever reasons, but Obama came along at just the right time, promising just the right goodies, to ignite an overwhelming black vote. His appearance after 8 years of a very unpopular Republican administration certainly helped him. As did the students' vote (talk about buying votes) and the women's vote (they were ready for affordable universal health care, which they still haven't got). Many factors came together to get Obama elected but when I saw black civil rights leaders (to the man) who started out supporting Hillary and then being strong-armed into switiching sides and supporting "one of their own", I call it as it seems to be: racism.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#28 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J.-------

You said "Wow! You have overwhelmed me with your knowledge".------

Thanks. Likewise.

You said "I didn't know about the rule changes in the Democratic Party primary".-------

Yes.

The rule changes went into effect right before the start of the 2007 Democratic Party primary. Before 2007, it was according to each state. With a winner take all. For the 2007 Democratic Party primary, it was changed to proportional.

Because of this, Hillary Clinton lost. Barack Obama won the 2007 Democratic Party primary.

You said "I like to think that as an outsider looking in, I have a perspective that many Americans may not have".-------

Mind if I ask, are you an African American who migrated to the United Kingdom (UK)?

Or, are you a Jamaican who lives in the UK?

How is the United Kingdom?
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#29 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>To answer your question: I don't know if Hillary was more qualified than John McCain. Probably not, given McCain's experience. However, after 8 years of Republican government under George Bush, I truly believe the American people wanted a complete change. They were fed up with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which they saw as Bush's wars.
__________

Your 4 points above.-------- I totally see eye to eye with you.

It wasn't just the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, it was also the Subprime Crisis breaking out in mid September, 2008. Where the sitting Republican president George Bush Jr. was blamed for it. Republicans in the House & Senate were also collectively blamed for it. But, it was the Democrats which caused the Subprime Crisis.
big moma

Cedar Grove, WV

#30 Feb 10, 2014
wat you talking about willis
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#31 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>And they were fed up with Wall Street for having gotten them into an economic mess that the Bush administration seemed to make worse by appointing Henry Paulson (a Wall Street insider) as Treasury Secretary and throwing tons of taxpayers' dollar at the problem. Yes, the money thrown at GM was deemed money well-spent (that's up for debate), but the money thrown at Wall Street was seen to go right into the pockets of undeserving CEOs.
__________

Your 4 points above.-------- I see them. But (With all due respect), there is much more involved.

In the lead up to the November, 2008 election, Wall Street was blamed for the economic problems. The United States president back then, Republican George Bush Jr. was blamed. Republicans who were in the House & Senate back then were collectively blamed.

But, it was the Democrats which caused the Subprime Crisis. This information came out fully by late November, 2008. Onwards.

Democrat Barack Obamas administration did throw money at General Motors. This saved General Motors. But, even more so, federal money was thrown at the automobile union. This money was for the union leaders & union members.

The automobile union leaders & union members benefitted. But, it was at the expense of General Motors salary employees.
t roan

Cedar Grove, WV

#32 Feb 10, 2014
get over the slave bull crap,that card has been played two many times do what i done get educated this is how we can evolve and overcome.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#33 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>So, the American people, not surprisingly, wanted a complete and thorough change. They wanted someone quite the opposite to Big Business, someone who told them that he would get them out of two unpopular wars - in short, Obama - inexperienced, left-wing, and full of social promises .. just what seemed to be needed at the time. I've gone on and on, as usual. However, McCain might have been the most qualified to run the country but he didn't stand a chance at being elected - for all the reasons I've given above. Yes, Hillary, if she had been the Democratic candidate, surely would have won the presidency. And, as I've written, the one aspect of that 2008 election which jumps out at me is the racist aspect. It's true, as you've said, that past black candidates have not enjoyed the black vote for whatever reasons, but Obama came along at just the right time, promising just the right goodies, to ignite an overwhelming black vote. His appearance after 8 years of a very unpopular Republican administration certainly helped him.
__________

Your 16 points above.-------- I see them. Am in total agreement with you.

Keisha, especially your last 2 points here.------ Where you said "but Obama came along at just the right time, promising just the right goodies, to ignite an overwhelming black vote. His appearance after 8 years of a very unpopular Republican administration certainly helped him".--------

Yep. Big time.

It shows the critical factor of timing. The Democratic Party having a relatively young, well groomed & well spoken candidate who promised "hope & change". Having this candidate in place at the right time.

But, Democrat Barack Obama didn't just promise the African American community goodies. He also promised a very, very large share of the non Hispanic White community goodies. Primarily for non Hispanic White union leaders, non Hispanic White union members, non Hispanic White students & non Hispanic White women.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#34 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>As did the students' vote (talk about buying votes) and the women's vote (they were ready for affordable universal health care, which they still haven't got).
__________

You are absolutely correct.

Democrat Barack Obama reaching out to these special interest groups.

A facet of the "Identity Politics" in the United States.

Promising them goodies. Student demographic (Primarily non Hispanic White college students) & the womens demographic (Primarily non Hispanic White women collectively).

Promising (Giving) the student demographic (Primarily non Hispanic White college students) loans & grants.

Promising the womens demographic (Primarily non Hispanic White women) to keep reproductive rights intact. Promising a fair pay act. Which was done, with the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009".

Yes, Barack Obama did promise the womens demographic (Primarily non Hispanic White women) affordable health care. Health Care Plan was crafted & passed in late, 2009. But, it hasn't been "affordable" for working women.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#35 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>Many factors came together to get Obama elected but when I saw black civil rights leaders (to the man) who started out supporting Hillary and then being strong-armed into switiching sides and supporting "one of their own", I call it as it seems to be: racism.
__________

Your 3 points above.------ I see your angle. Am in agreement.

Keisha, an observation about Democrat Barack Obamas presidency.------- Clearly, the vast majority of the African American (Descendants of black American slaves) voters voted for Barack.

But, Obama is just one person in the Democratic Party. Barack HAS to tow the Democratic Party line.

Obamas presidency has reached out & catered to these constituencies of the Democratic Party.-------

1. Non Hispanic White union leaders.

2. Non Hispanic White union members.

3. Homosexual, lesbian & transgendered lobby.

4. Hispanic lobby.

African American (Descendants of black American slaves) interests have VERY much been passed over.

Not surprising, considering that African Americans are not the United States numerically dominant "minority" anymore.

In mid July, 2002, legal Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) ALONE overtook African Americans as being the United States numerically dominant "minority".

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are the United States numerically dominant "minority". This is just taking into account just the legal Hispanics. This isn't even taking into account the illegal Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) in the United States.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#36 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly agree with you in principle - we are all in this together, the world over. But undeniably there is a racial barrier. One can hide his head in the sand and wish there were not, but the bitter truth is that racism exists. And it should be discussed, just as it is on this forum. Even the American news media discuss it openly, particularly at election time, with phrases like "the black vote" or "the hispanic vote". Politicians themselves exploit racism by appealing to one racial group or another.
__________

Keisha, you directed your above post to a different poster. He didn't respond back. But, I'll address it.-------

Your 6 points above.------ You are 150% correct.

Race relations go much, much farther than just individuals personal dealings & interactions with others.

Race relations also entail group dynamics, racial dynamics & racial politics. THESE are the areas where the divisions & polarization come into effect.

Every nation throughout the world takes tabulation of what race the people are who are living within their borders. Via a census.

Every nation throughout the world takes tab of what race the people are who are living within their borders is because race MATTERS.

Race has always mattered. It always will matter.

In the United States, the immigration policies of the federal government.------ Immigrants & refugees who come to this nation do NOT receive equal treatment. I can provide many examples which show this.

This shows that race matters.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#37 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, the last two American presidential elections were perhaps the most racist in American history. Blacks voted for a black presidential candidate simply because he was black. 95% is an exraordinary number that cannot be explained by issues or statisitcs, only by racism. The hispanic vote followed closely behind. I can understand a black person voting for a black president for the very first time in history. It was an emotional event, an historic event, and it might be excused on that basis alone, but the fact remains it was also a racist event.
__________

Your 7 points above.------- I see them. Am in agreement with 6 of them.

November, 2008 election.-------

95-97% of African Americans voted for Democrat Barack Obama.

65% of Hispanic-Americans voted for Barack.

November, 2012 election.------

93% of African Americans voted for Obama.

70% of Hispanic-Americans voted for Barack.

Clearly, most Hispanic-Americans vote Democrat. But, Hispanic-Americans are NOWHERES near the almost near monolithic voting bloc which African Americans are for the Democratic Party.
Johnny

Milwaukee, WI

#38 Feb 10, 2014
Keisha-J wrote:
<quoted text>Even the American news media discuss it openly, particularly at election time, with phrases like "the black vote" or "the hispanic vote". Politicians themselves exploit racism by appealing to one racial group or another.
__________

Keisha, your 2 points above.-------- You are absolutely correct.

Those are facets of the "Identity Politics" in the United States.

The Identity Politics in this nation CANNOT be transcended.

The United States has group dynamics, racial dynamics & racial politics.

Each & every one of the United States respective racial groups has their own goals, objectives & interests. Most of all, their own interests.

This will remain the deal into the future.

In this nation, the divide & dichotomy is between African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves) & White-Americans. This will never be healed.

This is why that many public policy initiatives & social engineering policies are in place. Against African Americans (Descendants of black American slaves).

Primarily to fracture & fragment the African American community.

Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are being given "Honorary White Status" in the United States.

Blacks who have ancestral roots from the Anglophone, French / Creole speaking Caribbean black nations & from Africa are being given a form of "Pseudo Honorary White Status" in this nation.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#39 Feb 11, 2014
Johnny wrote:
Keisha-J.-------
You said "Wow! You have overwhelmed me with your knowledge".------
Thanks. Likewise.
You said "I didn't know about the rule changes in the Democratic Party primary".-------
Yes.
The rule changes went into effect right before the start of the 2007 Democratic Party primary. Before 2007, it was according to each state. With a winner take all. For the 2007 Democratic Party primary, it was changed to proportional.
Because of this, Hillary Clinton lost. Barack Obama won the 2007 Democratic Party primary.
You said "I like to think that as an outsider looking in, I have a perspective that many Americans may not have".-------
Mind if I ask, are you an African American who migrated to the United Kingdom (UK)?
Or, are you a Jamaican who lives in the UK?
How is the United Kingdom?
I can certainly see how the rule change made a big difference to the selection of a candidate. Thank you for telling me about this. I like to think of myself as a student of history and since I have an avid interest in black history in America (from the time of the slave ships) I appreciate being able to add another gem of knowledge to the clutter in my head.
You asked about my heritage. I am from African descent. I was born in the UK. Both of my parents were born in America. My grandfather immigrated to the UK when my father was a little boy. So, British and European culture is pretty much all my father knows, as is the case with me. My grandfather immigrated soon after he left the US army. He had had an opportunity to temporarily serve with a British army unit and he made some lasting friendships. He was encouraged by his Brit friends to visit with a view to immigrating. And this he did. The racial situation wasn't perfect over here (and still isn't) but he felt it was better than in America. As for my mother, she met my father when she was on holidays in the UK. Needless to say, she stayed on. My mother is able to trace her ancestry back to the Gold Coast. My father's ancestors were a bit more nomadic and as far as we can tell came from the Cameroon area.
Sorry. Get me started on this stuff and I run on and on. Probably more than you ever wanted to know, but there you have it. African!
The UK is great. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, except perhaps Provence. I love it over there. We have our frustrations - the turmoil of London traffic (the transit strike didn't help) being at the top of the list. This year we've had crazy weather. The entire winter has been a constant round of rain and wind and flooding. But all one has to do is visit the West Country in the spring and summer and the winter is soon forgotten.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#40 Feb 11, 2014
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Not surprising, considering that African Americans are not the United States numerically dominant "minority" anymore.
In mid July, 2002, legal Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) ALONE overtook African Americans as being the United States numerically dominant "minority".
Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) are the United States numerically dominant "minority". This is just taking into account just the legal Hispanics. This isn't even taking into account the illegal Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) in the United States.
Again thank you. I didn't realize that Hispanics are now the dominant 'minority' in America. And this without even counting the illegal Hispanics. This must make Mario Rubio a major contender, if he decides to run which I think he will.
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#41 Feb 11, 2014
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Your 3 points above.------ I see your angle. Am in agreement.

Obamas presidency has reached out & catered to these constituencies of the Democratic Party.-------
1. Non Hispanic White union leaders.
2. Non Hispanic White union members.
3. Homosexual, lesbian & transgendered lobby.
4. Hispanic lobby.
African American (Descendants of black American slaves) interests have VERY much been passed over.Not surprising, considering that African Americans are not the United States numerically dominant "minority" anymore.

In mid July, 2002, legal Hispanics (Afro-Latinos included) ALONE overtook African Americans as being the United States numerically dominant "minority".
And have been given "honorary white status".

Hello Johnny

yon

Miami Beach, FL

#42 Feb 21, 2014
The sad fact is that blacks have dishonored themselves and are causing their own decline. Hispanics are honoring themselves causing their ascension.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min New Age Spiritual... 650,078
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 11 min Aussie Kev 2,310
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 35 min Clearwater 56,013
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 1 hr Just Think 435
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 106,067
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr New Ideas 44,944
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr New Ideas 618,574
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 hr brandy trujillo 971,739
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) Mon Jesus 47
More from around the web