Obama causes divisiveness

[Themightytom]

More and more I am hearing that Obama "causes" divisiveness. Somehow it is a failing on his part that the US is so "Split" on issues like healthcare.

Is this even logical? Can a person "cause" others to be divisive? Can a person "cause" others to disagree, and if so, how much responsibility is born by the individual BEING divisive versus the alleged antagonist. Its my opinion that the underlying divisiveness "caused" by Barack Obama is in fact a preexisting condition ironically, and that if anyone was "responsible" for causing divisiveness it would be the previous president who through his leadership encouraged black and white extremist thinking. I don't know how to present this as a logical argument, and in all honesty I would rather not just pass the blame for the state of our country and the conduct of our citizens onto another man, because I feel it is each person who chooses to be divisive, that is responsible, and not a person just trying to do the job we elected him to do.

Anyone have any thoughts as to how I can do this? I would like to frame this as a moral issue, "Who is responsible for divisiveness" and failing that demonstrate that the "Divisive" atitude is either not Obama's fault or was present before he took office.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The only persons causing divisiveness are those who are fear mongering. If both sides are engaged in honest effort to provide health care to all Americans then I doubt you'd see this divisiveness.

[Count Chocula]

Obama's divisive because he's a Democrat, much like Bush was divisive because he's a Republican. The two parties, and their adherents, are divisive by nature because the party platforms are in opposition, and as a result, the ~30% Demo voters and ~30% Repub voters create opposition to each other.

Jimmy Carter was "divisive" as well, as was Reagan, as was Clinton. It's part and parcel of American politics.

[Darksider]

bull. fucking. shit.

I don't remember anyone yelling and interrupting bush's speeches before congress, and I sure as hell don't remember anyone bringing assault weapons to any of bush's public appearances. Your post is nothing but mindless middle bullshit. The simple fact is that the right wing is being FAR more blatant and aggressive about their opposition to obama than the left wing ever was to bush.

[Count Chocula]

^ Oh please. Nobody brought weapons (all legally BTW) to reps' meetings when Bush was President because he wasn't restricting ownership...Bush's daddy's another story. The Democrats have a proven track record of restricting ownership.

As far as the right opposing Obama vs. the left opposing Bush, are you fucking kidding? The guy was called everything but baby-killer by the left. He was also called a liar, but granted not on the floor of Congress.

As for your "mindless middle" throwaway line, it's my experience that both Democrat and Republican true believers are the mindless ones, as they are so steeped in party dogma that they literally can't see any other point of view than their favored ones.

[Darksider]

The presence of weapons is itself a subtle threat of violence. Combine that with the teabagging fucktards who make signs that say "we came unarmed..... this time" and you have several implied threats of violence if the scary black man in charge doesn't drop to his knees and suck conservative cock.

I'd say that's way more divisive than any of the shit anyone ever said about bush. They called him a liar? Tough shit, that's what he was. They said he was eroding our civil liberties? Guess what, he was.

These teabagger idiots are dividing the country because they don't want the government involved in heath care, because government has no right to intrude in private business, except in the case of farm subsidies and the military-industrial complex.

[Simon_Jester]

Obama is by no means divisive; he merely reveals a division that already existed, between the faction of the population whose concept of America is threatened by him and his policies and the faction whose concept is not.

Something similar happened, much more overtly, with Lincoln. Lincoln was actually a pretty hard core conciliationist, but it didn't matter, because there were a lot of people in the country who wouldn't accept anyone who wasn't already on their side. They were satisfied with democracy only as long as it did what they wanted; when they realized that they weren't actually in the majority and that they were gradually losing control over the situation, they flipped out and got violent.
__________

Calling someone a liar (even when it happens on the Senate floor) is one thing; that happens, and it's OK for people to disagree strongly. But when one side is making shit up about how the other is planning to murder Grandma and turn the country into the People's Republic of Destitutionstan, when people are taking guns to political discussions that (and this is important) have nothing to do with guns... that's taking things to another level.

[Duckie]

Obama's divisive because he's a Democrat, much like Bush was divisive because he's a Republican. The two parties, and their adherents, are divisive by nature because the party platforms are in opposition, and as a result, the ~30% Demo voters and ~30% Repub voters create opposition to each other.

Jimmy Carter was "divisive" as well, as was Reagan, as was Clinton. It's part and parcel of American politics.

Traditionally ~40%; ~30%. Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans.

^ Oh please. Nobody brought weapons (all legally BTW) to reps' meetings when Bush was President because he wasn't restricting ownership...Bush's daddy's another story. The Democrats have a proven track record of restricting ownership.

As far as the right opposing Obama vs. the left opposing Bush, are you fucking kidding? The guy was called everything but baby-killer by the left. He was also called a liar, but granted not on the floor of Congress.

As for your "mindless middle" throwaway line, it's my experience that both Democrat and Republican true believers are the mindless ones, as they are so steeped in party dogma that they literally can't see any other point of view than their favored ones.

As for your "mindless middle" throwaway line, it's my experience that mindless middle is correct, because I'm mindless and think Left=Right.

[Darth Wong]

More and more I am hearing that Obama "causes" divisiveness. Somehow it is a failing on his part that the US is so "Split" on issues like healthcare.

Well of course the right-wingers are saying that. They can't very well admit that they are divisive, can they? They can't very well admit that their strategy of dividing Americans into "real Americans" and "anti-Americans" is inherently divisive and that they've been doing this for many years with absolutely no remorse, can they? They certainly can't admit that there's anything divisive about their strategy of declaring that "real America" excludes certain parts of America (like liberals, gays, Muslims, feminists, atheists, environmentalists, etc).

Oh no, they must instead say that Obama is divisive because the country is divided over him, thus acting as if you can tell how divisive someone is not by his conduct, but by whether anyone disagrees with him. By this token, the least divisive person in America would be Kanye West, since everyone agrees that he's a jackass.

[Shroom Man 777]

Obama also causes divisiveness because he made those Glenn Beck people think that he was a Secret Muslim and was born in Micronesia and stuff. If Obama didn't make those people think he was a Secret Muslim and was born in Micronesia, then there wouldn't BE any divisiveness!

Also, he is a colored person. By being a colored person, he is being divisive because he makes certain establishments prohibit colored people from entering them.

[Patrick Degan]

As far as the right opposing Obama vs. the left opposing Bush, are you fucking kidding? The guy was called everything but baby-killer by the left. He was also called a liar, but granted not on the floor of Congress.

The difference, Chocula, is that Bush actually was lying —which has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

[Count Chocula]

The difference, Chocula, is that Bush actually was lying —which has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

And so was Obama. Joe Wilson wasn't the only one on the floor in Congress who realized the President was lying...he was the one who (a bit crassly) yelled about it. For about 20 seconds, America had a meeting of England's Parliament. The President's statement specifically addresses to House Resolution 3200, not Baucus' Senate proposal BTW. Specifically, it could require some illegal aliens to buy health care insurance, and does not restrict the ability of illegal aliens to buy into the plan, and does not discount the possibility of Medicaid coverage being extended to illegal aliens. Whether the lie was an act of commission or omission is irrelevant, although I'd be bothered more if it was a lie of omission that meant Obama hadn't read the legislation and was going off staff-prepared points.

EDIT for spelling.

[Darth Wong]

Did you bother reading the fucking article you linked to? The bill explicitly bars illegal immigrants from receiving subsidies. It may require them to purchase insurance, but that is an obligation, not a benefit. What a lying sack of shit you are. And the fact that it contains no information about how to enforce the law is completely irrelevant, you blithering idiot. It's a law, not a fucking how-to manual for law enforcement. What right-wing blogger fed this steaming pile of horseshit to you? Or did you make it up yourself, by reading the CNN article and then coming to the exact opposite conclusion of what the article does, thus indicating that you are mentally retarded?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The difference, Chocula, is that Bush actually was lying —which has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

And so was Obama. Joe Wilson wasn't the only one on the floor in Congress who realized the President was lying...he was the one who (a bit crassly) yelled about it. For about 20 seconds, America had a meeting of England's Parliament. The President's statement specifically addresses to House Resolution 3200, not Baucus' Senate proposal BTW. Specifically, it could require some illegal aliens to buy health care insurance, and does not restrict the ability of illegal aliens to buy into the plan, and does not discount the possibility of Medicaid coverage being extended to illegal aliens. Whether the lie was an act of commission or omission is irrelevant, although I'd be bothered more if it was a lie of omission that meant Obama hadn't read the legislation and was going off staff-prepared points.

EDIT for spelling.

Jesus Christ, Chocula. Did you not read the article? What does it say under the section called "the verdict"?

False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents.

[Count Chocula]

Mea culpa. I was double checking with ABC News' spin and merged them.

[Patrick Degan]

Problem is, the ABC blog you cite doesn't even say wholly what you allege:

But back to the fact check desk: do President Obama’s proposed reforms apply to those in the U.S.
illegally? No.

To recap on what CRS says: Does the House bill provided subsidies to illegal immigrants? No.

Would the House bill require illegal immigrants to have health insurance? Some of them, yes.

Would the House bill allow illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance in a health insurance
exchange? It doesn’t restrict it, though White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said he
didn’t think the version of the law the president would sign would allow such a thing.

Could the House bill expand emergency Medicaid laws as they already exist, perhaps – perhaps --
expanding coverage for illegal immigrants in keeping with current law?

According to CRS: Yes.

Which means: Joe Wilson was being a dick, you didn't read the blog, and you've stepped in shit yet again.

[Darth Wong]

Joe Wilson was more than just a dick. He was calling out to his racist support base. Does anyone seriously think it was just a coincidence that he happened to falsely yell out "You lie" after Obama said something about immigrants? We know it wasn't because Obama was actually lying, despite Chocula's idiotic spin-doctoring attempt. But to pretend that "immigrant" is not a keyword for racists is to bury your head in the sand.

[Darksider]

But to pretend that "immigrant" is not a keyword for racists is to bury your head in the sand.

You know I often wonder how many of these "true americans" (Read: racist assholes) can trace their heritage in this country back more than two generations. I often hear my aunt and uncle bitching about illegal immigration and being proponents of the "border fence with guard posts so idiots can shoot at brown people" despite the fact that they're first generation american born. Now I don't usually like to stereotype, but my uncle is from Texas.........

[Themightytom]

But to pretend that "immigrant" is not a keyword for racists is to bury your head in the sand.

You know I often wonder how many of these "true americans" (Read: racist assholes) can trace their heritage in this country back more than two generations. I often hear my aunt and uncle bitching about illegal immigration and being proponents of the "border fence with guard posts so idiots can shoot at brown people" despite the fact that they're first generation american born. Now I don't usually like to stereotype, but my uncle is from Texas.........

That actually seems like a fair point to consider when taken with Shoom's observations. Obama seems to be taking epic levels of shit, in terms of emotionally charged factually incorrect attacks. Somewhere along the line it became completely permissive even for your average republican to spout garbage which does not stand up to scruitny.

The idea that Obama is somehow CAUSING people to accuse him of, planning death councils, fund abortions with tax payer money (I heard the phrase "Culture of death), rewriting the comstitution and attempting to write a godless imoral epilogue to US history seems patently absurd. I tend to try to find a common ground even with my ideological opponents, and was trying to consider nobjectively whether or not Obama as a leader could be considered to bear any responsibility for perhaps introducing new ideas to quickly or, using inflammatory language or something.

What I do propose, as a possible "concession" to the argument, is that perhaps Obama, in encouraging discussion rather than taking rapid unilateral steps, has opened Pandora's box with regards to international and domestic affairs. Americans who have in the past been coddled and treated like sheep are now being forced to evlaluate origins of their beliefs regarding policies and practices and virtually everyone doesn't like what they see.

So maybe Obama "causes divisiveness" by treating the US at large as though it were an intelligent reasonable adult, rather than a borderline unrully mob of idiots, but the other side of the coin, is that he Obama is as much a divider as kanye West was a unifier, in that Kanye brought everytogether on the topic of what a jackass he was.

[JBG]

"...Obama "causes divisiveness..."

I just don't see that. He has a program and a mandate.

Was he "being "divisive" by not getting 100% of the vote?

Correct me if I am wrong please but I seem to recall Bush as being divisive. Our prior PM, Howard, was constantly being accused of being divisive, as was his Labour predecessor, Keating, one of the best PMs we've had. Let alone Gough Whitlam!

When I see someone being accused of causing divisiveness I merely put it down to an intellectually feeble and infantile reaction to the basic political reality that not everyone agrees on everything.

[Darth Wong]

"...Obama "causes divisiveness..."

I just don't see that. He has a program and a mandate.

Was he "being "divisive" by not getting 100% of the vote?

Correct me if I am wrong please but I seem to recall Bush as being divisive. Our prior PM, Howard, was constantly being accused of being divisive, as was his Labour predecessor, Keating, one of the best PMs we've had. Let alone Gough Whitlam!

When I see someone being accused of causing divisiveness I merely put it down to an intellectually feeble and infantile reaction to the basic political reality that not everyone agrees on everything.

No, Bush really was divisive. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", remember? He was deliberately, consciously, openly divisive. He tried to divide up the entire planet into two sides of a war, which his supporters vaingloriously called a "clash of civilizations".

The fact that the accusation is so utterly without substance in the case of Obama does not mean it is always so. In fact, the accusation is almost certainly being hurled at Obama precisely because it was used against Bush, and Bush supporters are engaging in childish tit-for-tat games.

[JBG]

edit, computer problem

[Themightytom]

No, Bush really was divisive. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", remember? He was deliberately, consciously, openly divisive. He tried to divide up the entire planet into two sides of a war, which his supporters vaingloriously called a "clash of civilizations".

Actually when you put it that way I can kind of see how Obama could be considered a divisive influence in terms of drawing a line in the sand but he seems to add a new dimension to it. By mating his efforts and policies with the themes of "hope" and "Change" he draws a line between his supporters and his opponents, implying that Republicans are static and pessimistic.

If his opponents take ANY action regardless of whether it is his suggested step, Obama can claim the credit for enacting "Change" so instead of claiming "If your not with me, you're against me" he is stating "You're with me whether you know it or not." and people who do not want to embrace change are essentially left with no say over what is happening. You have to participate in the dialogue on the assumption that change will happen which is an allowance many will not make for ideological or political reasons.

In my OP though I characterized "divisiveness" negatively, when there is certainly some value in people organizing themselves into ideological positions for the purposes of ehalthy dialogue. Where Bush crushed everyone against them without permitting their views to be heard, Obama seems interested in healthy debate, a process which would ultimately result in assimilation on both sides of arguments that bear legitimacy. The divisiveness isn't neccesarily a negative, its the conduct afterwards which is nonproductive and the responsibility for such conduct definitely does not lie with Obama.

[Darth Wong]

No, Bush really was divisive. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", remember? He was deliberately, consciously, openly divisive. He tried to divide up the entire planet into two sides of a war, which his supporters vaingloriously called a "clash of civilizations".

Actually when you put it that way I can kind of see how Obama could be considered a divisive influence in terms of drawing a line in the sand but he seems to add a new dimension to it. By mating his efforts and policies with the themes of "hope" and "Change" he draws a line between his supporters and his opponents, implying that Republicans are static and pessimistic.

By that logic, anyone who ever says anything good about himself is divisive. When I say that Bush was divisive, it's because he did not just say good things about himself: he actually advocated treating any kind of dissent as a form of treason. And that attitude trickled down through his entire administration, not to mention being popular with his supporters.

If his opponents take ANY action regardless of whether it is his suggested step, Obama can claim the credit for enacting "Change" so instead of claiming "If your not with me, you're against me" he is stating "You're with me whether you know it or not." and people who do not want to embrace change are essentially left with no say over what is happening. You have to participate in the dialogue on the assumption that change will happen which is an allowance many will not make for ideological or political reasons.

Social change always does happen; that is an historical fact. No one is able to maintain social stasis for long, particularly in the modern era. I don't see how that makes Obama divisive, except against people who can't deal with reality.

In my OP though I characterized "divisiveness" negatively, when there is certainly some value in people organizing themselves into ideological positions for the purposes of ehalthy dialogue. Where Bush crushed everyone against them without permitting their views to be heard, Obama seems interested in healthy debate, a process which would ultimately result in assimilation on both sides of arguments that bear legitimacy. The divisiveness isn't neccesarily a negative, its the conduct afterwards which is nonproductive and the responsibility for such conduct definitely does not lie with Obama.

That's a strange definition of "divisive" that you're using. I would say that the perjorative "divisive" suggests that he deliberately does or says things intended to split the population. Bush did this. Obama has done nothing of the sort. The fact that some pre-existing divisions are heightened by his mere existence does not make him divisive.

[Yona]

Obama is being touted as divisive by the "radical right" because they and the rest of the Republicans know that if he gets HC reform to work, they are finished for at least the current generation of voters in this country. They simply do not want to give him any sort of victory,... it would mean their end, and they know it.

That and the racist, bigoted ass hats that run and populate the Republican Party can't stand the fact that a "non-white" was elected to the Presidency.

I'd elect him and anyone like him before I'd want to see another jackass like Bush,..... or God forbid, a nut case like Palin in that office.

Just my .02 ! (adjusted for inflation of course )