Conquer Club

Obama wrote:"I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities," Obama said in a statement on Sunday.

"We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... lence?lite


Let's think about the political process (voting and rhetoric).

Why would Obama say this?

Why not specifically target ALL violence--as oppose to only gun violence? Obviously, he's referring to Zimmerman's actions, but to me it suggests as if Martin was completely innocent (as if hitting someone's head to the concrete is a type of violence which... should go unmentioned?). If both people's violence were to be taken into consideration, then obviously a call against violence in general would be warranted, but that's not mentioned in this excerpt. It's weird, and I don't get Obama's/his speech writer's angle.

Does anyone think that Obama playing the race card in the first paragraph? Obviously, race is not mentioned--it's only hinted at it. "To widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities" suggests to me that Zimmerman is a narrow-minded bigot--according to the excerpt. It sounds like Obama is narrowing this issue into race--when it shouldn't be. It's like he's trying to tap into the 'hearts and minds' of his black voter market and/or anyone who thinks that this issue is primarily about racial discrimination/targeting.

If my interpretations are correct, then his rhetoric is manipulative and disgraceful*--if the alternet.org article can be trusted, then there was clear manipulation through that agency of the federal government (i.e. those who were organizing protests/backlash due to Martin's death). If anything, you'd want an impartial Executive magically promoting the general interest, but even that's not being achieved with his kind of rhetoric.

*No president speaks honestly and 100% from the heart (in many circumstances, they can't/shouldn't; otherwise, they wouldn't get re-elected or even make it to the nomination. It's like the electorate and politicians face a prisoner's dilemma). Their speeches are designed (note: their writing teams). Their events are planned; the attendees selectively invited. It's all political marketing for goal of securing profit (i.e. namely votes, campaign contributions, positive Party image, etc.).

He's doing a whole lot of not-saying-stuff-but-saying-stuff for purely political reasons. Trying to appease one side while not offending the other side too badly.

He did the same on the other side of the coin iirc. Some comment about being a country of laws and ask that the population respect the decision of the jury...

I dont even know why he's involved tbh, well I do, but cha know?

He is trying to appeal to the masses for calm and prevent riots and further deaths.

His words carry weight with many people believe it or not.

notyou2 wrote:He is trying to appeal to the masses for calm and prevent riots and further deaths.

Is he? I'm not sure his statement speaks to me as "Don't riot so we can prevent further deaths." The first statement he made is extremely problematic. I don't care about the anti-gun rhetoric because that is both understandable and expected. The appeal to "understanding the communities" is unnecessary and probably dangerous.

More attention should have been paid (by both the president and the media) to his comment about the judicial process.

notyou2 wrote:He is trying to appeal to the masses for calm and prevent riots and further deaths.

His words carry weight with many people believe it or not.

From loot's paraphrase of an Obama excerpt:

"Some comment about being a country of laws and ask that the population respect the decision of the jury."

So, sure, I somewhat agree with you, but obviously Obama is doing more than appealing to calm. He's playing on a divisive topic (by further being divisive about it) in order to 'score points'. To me, that's very low. That's beneath the ideal statesman, which probably is nonexistent.

thegreekdog wrote:

notyou2 wrote:He is trying to appeal to the masses for calm and prevent riots and further deaths.

Is he? I'm not sure his statement speaks to me as "Don't riot so we can prevent further deaths." The first statement he made is extremely problematic. I don't care about the anti-gun rhetoric because that is both understandable and expected. The appeal to "understanding the communities" is unnecessary and probably dangerous.

More attention should have been paid (by both the president and the media) to his comment about the judicial process.

Obama wrote:"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken,"

It would've been funny had he slipped up and said, "...and a jury of one's peers...". Although technically it's true, I'd guess that many from his voting markets would take it the wrong way.

BigBallinStalin wrote:He's playing on a divisive topic (by further being divisive about it) in order to 'score points'. To me, that's very low. That's beneath the ideal statesman, which probably is nonexistent.

I agree.

But my observation would be that he climbed to the top of a big ole pile of shit. I'd assert that it takes a pretty shitty person to do that. In other words: this surprises you?

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:He's playing on a divisive topic (by further being divisive about it) in order to 'score points'. To me, that's very low. That's beneath the ideal statesman, which probably is nonexistent.

I agree.

But my observation would be that he climbed to the top of a big ole pile of shit. I'd assert that it takes a pretty shitty person to do that. In other words: this surprises you?

Haha, no, not at all! I just like pointing out how self-interested politicians can be.

I wonder how much government money a president spends on their own marketing teams (i.e. speech writers, analysts, advisers, and anything/one related to their political marketing).

that was yesterday Obama was calling for calm

today Obama was calling for all Americans to pay homage to the life and legacy of George Bush



immediately the protests ended and people began parading giant placards emblazoned with Bush's photo through the streets

Obama's words carry influence

Obama said that because he got himself involved when he fanned the flames/saw a way to exploit Trayvon Martin's death in order to register a quarter million Trayvon supporters to vote.

"If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"

saxitoxin wrote:that was yesterday Obama was calling for calm

today Obama was calling for all Americans to pay homage to the life and legacy of George Bush



immediately the protests ended and people began parading giant placards emblazoned with Bush's photo through the streets

Obama's words carry influence

He helped over 50 million hungry children in over 15 million countries!!!!1

<grabs pro-Bush Sr. placard>

HOORAY!! HOORAY!!! HOORAY!!!

notyou2 wrote:He is trying to appeal to the masses for calm and prevent riots and further deaths.

Too bad his comment last year about how Trayvon "looks" managed to achieve the complete opposite.

People fail to see the good in this event. Hungry Children in other countries were fed. And all we can talk about is Obama?

I mean, I don't like Obama as our President, but NOT EVERY discussion is about him.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
It's a no win situation for the President.

Race and gun violence are two issues that need to be openly discussed in the USA. There are idiots in America that trust hearsay and stereotypes more than their own instinct and life experiences.

I like your thread and where I think this will end up if things start getting really ugly on the streets concerning the racist violence against innocent people. I notice people who are obsessed with "violent, racist groups" are terribly silent in the face of REAL violence and racism.



But it makes me think of difference #13 between Romney and Obama, specifically concerning the Zimmerman case. Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."



I honestly believe, that instead of throwing jet-fuel on the fire like President Obama did, Romney probably would not have injected politics into the matter and thrust it into national front page news, and I know for a fact Romney would not have doused rocket-fuel on the fire so he could build a narrative based on lies, racism, and fear in order to motivate unregistered youths at Trayvon rallies so he could get them to vote for him.

oVo wrote:
Race and gun violence are two issues that need to be openly discussed in the USA. There are idiots in America that trust hearsay and stereotypes more than their own instinct and life experiences.

Bingo!

Let's start with the gun violence.

Where is the overwhelming majority of gun violence?
Who are the overwhelming majority of people committing gun violence?
Who are the overwhelming majority of victims of gun violence?

Phatscotty wrote:Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

hmmmm ...

"My wife and I are giving birth to a black baby!"


"My wife and I are giving birth to a black baby!"

OK, agreed.

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

hmmmm ...

"My wife and I are giving birth to a black baby!"

OK, agreed.

Yet, it's still true the implications of the Executive's response has had a staggering impact in the evolution of the Zimmerman case, and possibly even more so as the violent, racist reactions play out.

saxitoxin wrote:"My wife and I are giving birth to a black baby!"

show

Phatscotty wrote:But it makes me think of difference #13 between Romney and Obama, specifically concerning the Zimmerman case. Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

Gee, you think? <facepalm>

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But it makes me think of difference #13 between Romney and Obama, specifically concerning the Zimmerman case. Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

Gee, you think? <facepalm>

No, Woodruff. That's an important difference that Phatscotty has come up with. If he continues on this track, he could come up with millions of differences. Now, none of them would be remotely relevant to the presidency and therefore would not knock over my point, but still...

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But it makes me think of difference #13 between Romney and Obama, specifically concerning the Zimmerman case. Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

Gee, you think? <facepalm>

No, Woodruff. That's an important difference that Phatscotty has come up with. If he continues on this track, he could come up with millions of differences. Now, none of them would be remotely relevant to the presidency and therefore would not knock over my point, but still...

Phatscotty CLAIMS that he already provided you with TEN relevant differences (as opposed the five that you requested). Of course, he refuses to actually point to that post, but still...

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But it makes me think of difference #13 between Romney and Obama, specifically concerning the Zimmerman case. Mitt Romney would not have said "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

Gee, you think? <facepalm>

No, Woodruff. That's an important difference that Phatscotty has come up with. If he continues on this track, he could come up with millions of differences. Now, none of them would be remotely relevant to the presidency and therefore would not knock over my point, but still...

Phatscotty CLAIMS that he already provided you with TEN relevant differences (as opposed the five that you requested). Of course, he refuses to actually point to that post, but still...

Right. I can come up with 5 differences right now (all racially related!):

(1) Obama is half white, Romney is 100% white.
(2) Obama's wife is black, Romney's wife is white.
(3) Obama's children are black. Romney's children are white.
(4) Obama's father is black. Romney's father is white.
(5) Obama's in-laws are black. Romney's in-laws are white.

Ta da! And guess what Woodruff? None of those have anything to do with how each would function as president (unless, of course, you believe that a half-white man and a white man, by the color of their skins, would function differently as president... in which case you are a racist).