Trump has a plan

[jimmy eat jazz]

I am not comparing him to other presidents. But I do not think he has been a unifier. For comments like "clinging to guns and religion". The way he says things offends, often intentionally, those on the other side of the political spectrum. He does a lot of political shaming.

I also think the President gets full blame for the divide unfairly. The Rs have been slinging mud every chance they get and they share a heavy load of the blame as well. But they play political games and blame it all on him (more political shaming). I am not sure there is anyone capable of truly uniting this country again short of a major catastrophe.

That's my take on the whole issue.

Fair enough. (The remainder of my post is not directed at you per se but others who think to label Obama a divider.) That's ONE example, however. Does that mean no other President ever said anything some might take offense to? I don't dispute that Obama may have said or did things that offended some, but whether he did so at a rate that much higher than his predecessors that he should be labeled a 'divider' is, in my view, very much in dispute. (If he's a 'divider' because some took offense at what he said, then so were other Presidents--and by this standard they all would qualify--then the term has no real meaning, other than a partisan knee jerk criticism.)

BTW, and for what it's worth. I believe Obama is on public record saying that he regrets saying this.

I imagine it's very hard in a diverse and politically divided country to manage to be in office 8 years trying to enact a policy agenda without giving offense on occasion.

Again, IF Obama is indeed a divider, to me, the criterion is NOT that he said or did things to give offense but that he did so (legitimately, and not seen to do so simply because he did something something politically objects to) at a higher rate than 'non-dividers' (e.g., past presidents).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

For those on the right, I'm curious, just how was Obama a divider? What made him particularly worse than his predecessors such that you call him out on it but not, say, Bush or others?

I voted for Obama in '08. I believed that if nothing else, he would help us heal from racism. Unfortunately at virtually every opportunity he's done the opposite. Early in his first term there was an incident where police arrested a Harvard professor in his own home because they responded to a 911 break in call. Before gathering any facts Obama said that the police had acted stupidly. Leaving completely aside whether they did or not, do you believe that is the correct way for the president to become involved in a police/civilian matter?

On every subsequent occasion that I'm aware of where Obama has chosen to become involved in a situation like this he has chosen his side of the argument based on race. The result is that this country feels far more racially divided today than it did 8 years ago. I am not arguing that blacks don't have legitimate complaints in some of these cases, but I sincerely wish the president would go into these situations with a mindset of reducing the tension rather than increasing it. I've been very unimpressed by how Obama has handled these sorts of situations.

 

[Stoked]

Fair enough. (The remainder of my post is not directed at you per se but others who think to label Obama a divider.) That's ONE example, however. Does that mean no other President ever said anything some might take offense to? I don't dispute that Obama may have said or did things that offended some, but whether he did so at a rate that much higher than his predecessors that he should be labeled a 'divider' is, in my view, very much in dispute. (If he's a 'divider' because some took offense at what he said, then so were other Presidents--and by this standard they all would qualify--then the term has no real meaning, other than a partisan knee jerk criticism.)

BTW, and for what it's worth. I believe Obama is on public record saying that he regrets saying this.

I imagine it's very hard in a diverse and politically divided country to manage to be in office 8 years trying to enact a policy agenda without giving offense on occasion.

Again, IF Obama is indeed a divider, to me, the criterion is NOT that he said or did things to give offense but that he did so (legitimately, and not seen to do so simply because he did something something politically objects to) at a higher rate than 'non-dividers' (e.g., past presidents).

And this might be the case. But just because they were dividers does not mean others were not as well. And part of this might be because they were never truly given the chance.

I'd go back to blaming the Rs and Ds. They are pushing hard left and hard right in ways that directly oppose the other. Through media, outreach, speeches... until they stop driving this divide we will never see some semblance of unity. And they will stop when we force them to.

So I do think he pokes the right in the eye often. But so does everyone else and that ultimately lies with us because we keep supporting them. Which is why I say he is a divider when asked but not really something I volunteer as a critique without being prompted.

 

[str8line]

I met a guy who knows him well from years ago. They were ski instructors together in Taos. He wasn't impressed.

Do you even recognize the hypocrisy of posting this hearsay and in the same breath bagging(or bagadonuting; or bagadouching) on me for hearsay?

 

[str8line]

For those on the right, I'm curious, just how was Obama a divider? What made him particularly worse than his predecessors such that you call him out on it but not, say, Bush or others?

He's black.