America - The Official Thread

[Sanji Himura]

you really don't think that right wing news sources, from Fox News through to Breibart & Alex Jones have wide currency in the US?

One of these does not belong.

Although there were certainly many contributing factors in Clinton's loss, not least of which was an obvious lack of enthusiasm among much of the Democratic base, I believe the "fake news" about Clinton was the factor that finally sank her campaign, convincing wavering Democrats to stay at home or even vote for Trump.

Can't you admit that the Reagan Democrats, who were forced for years to stay at home because all of the candidates were too liberal for their beliefs, finally found someone who was more in line with them?

 

[Biggles]

Can't you admit that the Reagan Democrats, who were forced for years to stay at home because all of the candidates were too liberal for their beliefs, finally found someone who was more in line with them?

Yes, I think it's likely that that was one of the factors ... but I think that, in this context, "liberal" is so vague a term that it's not very helpful.

White working class voters in the "rust-belt" states traditionally voted Democrat because the Democrats were seen as more protective of labor & particularly unionized jobs. The economic malaise under Carter in the late '70's disillusioned many of those voters & they voted for Reagan. The economic growth in the '80's consolidated support for Reagan, but the policies adopted by Reagan gradually undermined the relative prosperity of the working classes & the '90's brought the beginning of a tech revolution that destroyed many blue collar jobs & shifted manufacturing increasingly overseas.

Trump has appealed to a lot of those voters, but in spite of his promises there is no way that traditional manufacturing jobs are coming back to small & medium-sized towns in the US. That train has left the station. Trump is just a snake-oil salesman, promising things he cannot deliver. At the end of the day I think Trump is going to revert, with the help of the Republican majority in Congress, to traditional GOP strategies of lowering taxes on the wealthy & boosting military spending, which will balloon the deficit & are not going to make much difference to the lives of blue-collar Trump voters. Nor will the Wall or immigration controls make much difference - unless Americans are willing to go & pick fruit for minimum wage. The one thing Trump might do to help would be infrastructure spending - traditionally a Democratic idea, but I suspect that will be blocked by GOP budget hawks.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Crunch: you really don't think that right wing news sources, from Fox News through to Breibart & Alex Jones have wide currency in the US? I'm sure it's true that, unlike many of the posters participating in this forum, the majority of Americans are not news junkies, but I'm pretty sure that, nevertheless, the basic outlines of the plot filter down to a significant percentage of the population. The anti-Clinton ground had been prepared for years - decades, in fact - so whatever negative news - whether true, partially true, or a complete fabrication - was put out about Clinton, it immediately found a receptive audience. The pizzagate story is one of the most obvious examples of that.

Although there were certainly many contributing factors in Clinton's loss, not least of which was an obvious lack of enthusiasm among much of the Democratic base, I believe the "fake news" about Clinton was the factor that finally sank her campaign, convincing wavering Democrats to stay at home or even vote for Trump.

I should just ignore you because for some reason you have chosen not to disclose your nationality.

I will go on the assumption that you are not an American. But I am not going to bother sourcing anything for you, if you don't believe what I am saying, oh well. Most of what I have to say is anecdotal anyway.

The people in this country were sick of businesses as usual in Washington.

The Democrats, "champions of the little guy", cost this country millions of good paying jobs with trade deals. I remember when NAFTA passed, I remember thinking to myself that it was kind of like welfare for Mexico. I supported Clinton, by the way. I knew that Mexicans would work for much less than Americans, and a lot of jobs would be lost, but I didn't think it would end up being as bad as it is.

I personally abandoned the Democrat party during Bill Clinton's impeachment. I delivered pizzas at the time and I got my news from NPR on my car radio. It was obvious that Bill Clinton had committed perjury, but the spin that it was just about sex, was more than I could stomach. The Republicans were labeled as prudes and Ken Starr was called a pervert.

When President Obama was elected, I did not support him, but at least, I thought, it would put an end to notion that this was a racist country. Obama did nothing but add fuel to the fire from the beginning. From the Cambridge police acting "stupidly" for arresting a college professor, to Trayvon Martin looking like his nonexistent son, the President only fanned the flames. Add to that the media doctoring the 911 call made by Zimmerman (the white hispanic) and for months trying to convince us that Martin was killed by some kind of cop wannabe in an act of vigilante justice, people got sick of it.
Then the media pushed the story of the the strong arm robbery suspect, the gentle giant, and his plea "hands up, don't shoot", which everyone with half a brain knows is just a lie. That spawned the BLM, and emboldened a bunch of nutjobs to start killing cops.

But I am getting way off the topic of your question.

I think Trump was elected because there was this growing movement. It started before the 2008 election. There was this huge financial crises, McCain even suspended his presidential campaign to get back to Washington. Many Americans were already concerned about the growing national debt. Then George W. Bush, added 700 billion more by bailing out financial institutions in the US. I remember seeing normal people protesting this on the street on my way to work one day. My boss and I were tempted to go and join them, but eh. This grew into what was later called the Tea Party (I have alway hated that it had a label at all).

The media tried to tell us that the Tea Party was nothing more than Astroturf, an organized and often paid for by right wing groups, or people like the Koch brothers. But no one believed that. It was a truly organic grass roots, rising up of ordinary Americans.

These people (and I'm included in this) wanted to send a bomb to Washington to blow up the establishment. You have congressman and senators that have been there for decades getting rich, far beyond what the government pays them. They are even allowed to engage in insider trading, knowing they have the power to manipulate stock prices with the laws that they pass.

To be quite honest, I rarely watch Fox News, and most of my friends don't watch it at all. This has been more of a word of mouth thing among every day Americans. @Sanji Himura is right, this is very similar to the Reagan revolution.

 

[andrea]

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Seriously......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ny-spending-a7650636.html?cmpid=facebook-post

......not sure if Trump is actually now full on Poe or really that unaware.

Right, because it worked so well the last time someone handed Germany a bill like that ...

 

[huskeR32]

I should just ignore you because for some reason you have chosen not to disclose your nationality.

What has that got to do with anything? (Also, he's mentioned where he's from several times on these forums, he's not hiding anything.)

But I am not going to bother sourcing anything for you, if you don't believe what I am saying, oh well.

Always the sign of a strong argument.

Most of what I have to say is anecdotal anyway.

Yeah, we've noticed.

--

If anything, it just furthers the point.

In what way does having more web traffic than CNN further the point that they're marginalized?

I'm really starting to wonder if you guys know what that word means.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Jared Kushner to be questioned about the meeting with the Russian Ambassador at Trumpton in December 2016. Surely that's far enough away from Election Day to be okay?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Jared Kushner to be questioned about the meeting with the Russian Ambassador at Trumpton in December 2016. Surely that's far enough away from Election Day to be okay?

He's also facing questions about his contact with VBE, a bank under sanctions.

 

[Scaff]

They got the charge right at last.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ling-Indicted-Murder-Terrorism-417219563.html

I wonder when Trump will actually mention it.

 

[Dotini]

Skepticism of global climate change alarums - prepare for giant cutbacks in EPA regulations. Great news for liquid fuel fans (us). Bad news for alternative energy fans? (also us?)

MELISSA PHILLIP /AP

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt said on CNBC's Squawk Box that he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ay-not-much/0YaEcY9qxaFIDFb5omFEbL/story.html

 

[UKMikey]

They got the charge right at last.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ling-Indicted-Murder-Terrorism-417219563.html

I wonder when Trump will actually mention it.

Interesting that his lawyer suggested that supremacist remarks such as he's accused of would indicate "obvious" psychological problems. I wonder whether he'll end up getting a reduced sentence or declared NGI. Somehow I don't think every suspected terrorist is afforded this much benefit of the doubt regarding his mental state though.

 

[Scaff]

Interesting that his lawyer suggested that supremacist remarks such as he's accused of would indicate "obvious" psychological problems. I wonder whether he'll end up getting a reduced sentence or declared NGI. Somehow I don't think every suspected terrorist is afforded this much benefit of the doubt regarding his mental state though.

Time to roll this one out.....

 

[IforceV8]

Now we know the reason Nunes cancelled hearings this week https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...es1005a:homepage/story&utm_term=.23f8ec78a61f

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump repeals as much of Obama's environmental policy as he can with a single executive order:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-sweeping-away-obama-climate-policies/8395486

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Trump repeals as much of Obama's environmental policy as he can with a single executive order:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-sweeping-away-obama-climate-policies/8395486

On that very subject, here is what we were treated to on this morning's ABC broadcast of The View.

If this video is country restricted, let me know, I will look for one that is not.

 

[IforceV8]

Swamp creatures. http://www.wnyc.org/story/paul-manaforts-puzzling-new-york-real-estate-purchases/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/manafort-linked-accounts-cyprus-raised-red-flag-n739156

I cant wait until we see Manafort on his perp walk surrounded by FBI guys in the fancy gov. issue blue windbreakers.

 

[Biggles]

I should just ignore you because for some reason you have chosen not to disclose your nationality.

I will go on the assumption that you are not an American. But I am not going to bother sourcing anything for you, if you don't believe what I am saying, oh well. Most of what I have to say is anecdotal anyway.

The people in this country were sick of businesses as usual in Washington.

The Democrats, "champions of the little guy", cost this country millions of good paying jobs with trade deals. I remember when NAFTA passed, I remember thinking to myself that it was kind of like welfare for Mexico. I supported Clinton, by the way. I knew that Mexicans would work for much less than Americans, and a lot of jobs would be lost, but I didn't think it would end up being as bad as it is.

I personally abandoned the Democrat party during Bill Clinton's impeachment. I delivered pizzas at the time and I got my news from NPR on my car radio. It was obvious that Bill Clinton had committed perjury, but the spin that it was just about sex, was more than I could stomach. The Republicans were labeled as prudes and Ken Starr was called a pervert.

When President Obama was elected, I did not support him, but at least, I thought, it would put an end to notion that this was a racist country. Obama did nothing but add fuel to the fire from the beginning. From the Cambridge police acting "stupidly" for arresting a college professor, to Trayvon Martin looking like his nonexistent son, the President only fanned the flames. Add to that the media doctoring the 911 call made by Zimmerman (the white hispanic) and for months trying to convince us that Martin was killed by some kind of cop wannabe in an act of vigilante justice, people got sick of it.
Then the media pushed the story of the the strong arm robbery suspect, the gentle giant, and his plea "hands up, don't shoot", which everyone with half a brain knows is just a lie. That spawned the BLM, and emboldened a bunch of nutjobs to start killing cops.

But I am getting way off the topic of your question.

I think Trump was elected because there was this growing movement. It started before the 2008 election. There was this huge financial crises, McCain even suspended his presidential campaign to get back to Washington. Many Americans were already concerned about the growing national debt. Then George W. Bush, added 700 billion more by bailing out financial institutions in the US. I remember seeing normal people protesting this on the street on my way to work one day. My boss and I were tempted to go and join them, but eh. This grew into what was later called the Tea Party (I have alway hated that it had a label at all).

The media tried to tell us that the Tea Party was nothing more than Astroturf, an organized and often paid for by right wing groups, or people like the Koch brothers. But no one believed that. It was a truly organic grass roots, rising up of ordinary Americans.

These people (and I'm included in this) wanted to send a bomb to Washington to blow up the establishment. You have congressman and senators that have been there for decades getting rich, far beyond what the government pays them. They are even allowed to engage in insider trading, knowing they have the power to manipulate stock prices with the laws that they pass.

To be quite honest, I rarely watch Fox News, and most of my friends don't watch it at all. This has been more of a word of mouth thing among every day Americans. @Sanji Himura is right, this is very similar to the Reagan revolution.

Just for the record: I live in Canada, have Canadian & British citizenship & have lived in the UK, Switzerland, Italy & the US. I have close family & business ties with the US.

So, you’ve decided that the election of Obama should have put an end to the notion that the US was a racist country. Well, it certainly demonstrated that a large number of Americans were open-minded enough to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. However … a lot of people didn’t vote for Obama. Of course many of them may have had legitimate reasons - political reasons - for opposing Obama: he was a “socialist” for instance. But here’s a niggling fact: even in June of 2016 41% of Republican voters polled were of the opinion that Obama was not born in the US, while up to 2/3rds of Trump supporters held the opinion that Obama was a Muslim.

I’ve been around a while & witnessed a few US election cycles. I don’t recall any previous President being accused of being foreign-born … or of being a Muslim. Could it have anything to do with Obama being … black? And of course, the chief propagator of the “birther” lies was none other than the present occupant of the White House.

NAFTA was "kind of like welfare for Mexico"? I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain exactly what you mean by that, because stated that way it sounds sort of … racist. As far as I see it, NAFTA seems like an application of good old fashioned capitalist principles: Mexicans are willing to work harder, for less, than US workers. I’m not sure how that qualifies as “welfare”? Of course, it’s not been a good deal for a good chunk of US workers in manufacturing industries, although from what I understand, the majority of jobs have been lost primarily to automation & secondly to China (where there have been workers willing to work harder for even less than Mexicans), rather than to Mexico. In the end, it’s all supposed to work out for the best for everyone – ask Danoff, he’ll explain it. In the short term, it certainly works out well for the capitalist class & their lackeys – politicians.

So, the “people” wanted to send a “bomb to blow up the establishment”. For that they picked Donald J. Trump, a billionaire who had never in his life showed the slightest concern for the “people”, dedicated his life to self-aggrandizement & amassing personal wealth & bragged about avoiding taxes & gaming the system … and is now at the head of a party that is dedicated to the concept of trickle-down economics. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Just for the record: I live in Canada, have Canadian & British citizenship & have lived in the UK, Switzerland, Italy & the US. I have close family & business ties with the US.

Thank you. Why hide it?

So, you’ve decided that the election of Obama should have put an end to the notion that the US was a racist country. Well, it certainly demonstrated that a large number of Americans were open-minded enough to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. However … a lot of people didn’t vote for Obama. Of course many of them may have had legitimate reasons - political reasons - for opposing Obama: he was a “socialist” for instance. But here’s a niggling fact: even in June of 2016 41% of Republican voters polled were of the opinion that Obama was not born in the US, while up to 2/3rds of Trump supporters held the opinion that Obama was a Muslim.

The birther movement as far as Republicans are concerned is a dead issue. Ted Cruz was not born in this country and only his mother was a US citizen. That is exactly what the birthers believed about Obama. You can call that racist all you want, it does not make it true.

As far as Obama being a Muslim, That is what my 79 year old pentecostal mother thinks. I personally think he is an atheist (nothing wrong with that). I think he started attending the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago to get closer to the black community. Rabble rousers need a rabble to rouse.

The Democrats are always trying to call the Republicans out as racists. The facts, however do not back that claim up.

Lincoln was a Republican. He ended slavery in this country

The first black congressmen, Hiram Revels and Joseph Rainey were both Republicans.

The first black senator, Hiram Rhodes Revels was a Republican.

In the Coushatta massacre in 1870, 6 Republicans and many freed slaves were killed by Democrats.

In the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

The Senate vote:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Ben Carson, Herman Cain...

I could go on and on.

Those who try and paint the Republicans as racist are liars.

NAFTA was "kind of like welfare for Mexico"? I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain exactly what you mean by that, because stated that way it sounds sort of … racist. As far as I see it,

How is that racist? You will have to explain that to me.

In the early 1990s Mexico truly was a 3rd world nation. I knew NAFTA would help bring them up, and it has.

I think now, it is time for the Mexican government to get control of it's own corruption and stand on it's own. I was in Mexico a few years ago, in Cabo San Lucas. On the way back to the airport we got pulled over for speeding, and we were. I was shocked that the cops took a bribe, (I was not driving) and let us go. That would never happen here.

NAFTA seems like an application of good old fashioned capitalist principles: Mexicans are willing to work harder, for less, than US workers. I’m not sure how that qualifies as “welfare”? Of course, it’s not been a good deal for a good chunk of US workers in manufacturing industries, although from what I understand, the majority of jobs have been lost primarily to automation & secondly to China (where there have been workers willing to work harder for even less than Mexicans), rather than to Mexico. In the end, it’s all supposed to work out for the best for everyone

In the end. I think "free trade" works on paper, but when foreign workers are paid pennies on the dollar as American workers something has got to give. Like I said before, I was all for Clinton and NAFTA in the beginning, but now it has hurt the US too much. Maybe in 20 years or so we can try it again, when Mexico has risen to near the level as Canada and the US.

Edit: I edited this post to add an "s", I guess I will edit it again to add this. Johnny Rotten, on Trump.

 

[Scaff]

And all of them watch Fox News? I doubt it.

I didn't say they did, you however said distribution outside the US was not relevant, potentially for millions of Americans it is. Not to mention that you don't get to determine what is and isn't relevant for the rest of the world.

Twitter is about the only truly uncensored vector Trump has to communicate with the American people. 140 characters at a time.

And?

Assuming that is true are you able to provide proof that only Conservative news gets censored and that the above claim only applies to conservative news stories and reach?

What about Trump's tweets whipping billions off the share value of companies? That's marginal reach to you is it?

I find your fact that CNN has a bigger web presence than Fox News to be rather shocking.

About Facebook, this is from the source you sited.

The source I cited said it was suggested tis happened, it didn't show it happening.

Nobody, except news geeks even know who Alex Jones is, much less know what pizzagate is. There was a news story about that whacko went into that pizza place with a gun. But they didn't say what pizzagate was, just that he was motivated by a fake news story.

edit: CBS's 60 Minutes is about to do a news story about fake news, in the teaser they showed a computer screen with pizzagate written on it.

So nobody but news geeks knows about it, but it lost Flynn's son his job and 60 minutes run a story using it as a banner image (which contradicts your claim).

Given that near 50% of republicans polled seemed aware enouh of it to think it had truth to it would also seem to show that to be untrue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/28/pizzagate-theory-believed-by-nearly-half-of-republ/

You say tomato, I say tomato.

No, you say marginal and when shown the actual definition of marginal and asked to show how Fox and the White House can meet that definition ignore it.

You say marginal but can't actually support that claim in any way at all, I suspect that this has far more to do with you not wanting to see the side you politically lean to as using propaganda, so insisting its marginal (while seeing your political opposites as having reach with propaganda) supports your own desire for conformation bias.

You have so far failed utterly to demonstrate that the conservative media and Trump white House have marginal reach, and seem to insist on doing so by attempting to redefine the word 'marginal.

Thank you. Why hide it?

Why demand it? It has nothing to do with his ability to discuss the topic at hand, and despite what you might believe a member doesn't have to be American to understand or comment on what goes on in the US.

Thank you. Why hide it?
Edit: I edited this post to add an "s", I guess I will edit it again to add this. Johnny Rotten, on Trump.

And?

One of these does not belong.

Hold on I think I can work it out. Its either Breitbart because the other two have at one time or another either retracted or apologized for inaccurate stories or its Fox News because its the only one which actually is a true news outlet.

 

[mister dog]

Good example of how newspapers headlines try to manipulate people (watch the whole video).

 

[Scaff]

Good example of how newspapers headlines try to manipulate people (watch the whole video).

So a piece in which the question asked gets edited out and we only hear one side of the story is any less of a manipulation tool in what way?

 

[mister dog]

So a piece in which the question asked gets edited out and we only hear one side of the story is any less of a manipulation tool in what way?

Well for starters the audience is a lot smaller, seeing Markie here isn't part of the mainstream media.

 

[Scaff]

Well for starters the audience is a lot smaller, seeing Markie here isn't part of the mainstream media.

So you don't see a piece complaining about manipulation, while being blatantly manipulative as a concern?

To be honest we don't even know if his claim of it being MSM manipulation are even true, given that he removes the information we would need to know if that was the case.

 

[mister dog]

So you don't see a piece complaining about manipulation, while being blatantly manipulative as a concern?

Please demonstrate where there is blatant manipulation? I hope you don't refer to Marks opinion, because it's pretty clear to people watching the video that it is an opinion.

To be honest we don't even know if his claim of it being MSM manipulation are even true, given that he removes the information we would need to know if that was the case.

He's showing newspaper headlines at the end of the video, hence why I said please watch the whole video.

 

[Scaff]

Please demonstrate where there is blatant manipulation? I hope you don't refer to Marks opinion, because it's pretty clear to people watching the video that it is an opinion.

He talks over the question being asked of Spicer, as such we have no context at all to either the answer he gives or his reaction. That is manipulation.

He's showing newspaper headlines at the end of the video, hence why I said please watch the whole video.

Which again without the context of the question asked is meaningless (stop assuming people haven't watched videos).

You seem to be applying a rather large double standard here.

On a lighter note I did see this yesterday and had a chuckle.

 

[Dotini]

Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report
March 24, 2017 8:31 PM

The original CrowdStrike report, dated Dec. 22, 2016, was revised and reposted on March 23, 2017. (Courtesy of CrowdStrike)

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

WASHINGTON —
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.

 

[huskeR32]

Thank you. Why hide it?

Again, he doesn't hide it. He's stated it several times before.

And I'm still curious as to why it's relevant.

The birther movement as far as Republicans are concerned is a dead issue.

Um...

But here’s a niggling fact: even in June of 2016 41% of Republican voters polled were of the opinion that Obama was not born in the US

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at you ignoring facts, as you stated yourself that

Most of what I have to say is anecdotal anyway.

Just don't expect the rest of us to follow you into the fact-free zone.

I personally think he is an atheist (nothing wrong with that). I think he started attending the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago to get closer to the black community. Rabble rousers need a rabble to rouse.

We're talking about a man who was elected president with more than 50% of the vote. Twice. He had plenty of support from Democrats across the board. But your theory is that he faked religious belief in order to win the trust of the black community, so that he could purposefully stoke their racial fears and resentment?

Let's set aside, for a moment, that the black community didn't need any help in getting behind the first viable black candidate this country has ever had. Why would he need to do that? What actions did he end up taking that support your theory? Why bother rousing the rabble, but then never lead them anywhere?

Every time I've heard folks espouse this theory, it has sounded like little more than sour grapes about a man who got a little too uppity for their liking. I'm hoping that you've actually got something substantial to add to the picture.

The Democrats are always trying to call the Republicans out as racists. The facts, however do not back that claim up.

Lincoln was a Republican...

*more stuff that ignores the fact that the two parties have essentially switched places in the intervening 150 years*

I could go on and on.

Those who try and paint the Republicans as racist are liars.

You're going to have to do better than that. The two parties have changed so thoroughly since the Civil War that any attempts to compare either of them to their current versions is silly.

Anybody who calls the Republicans racist is doing so based upon current behavior, like blatant attempts to make it harder for people of color to vote; or demonizing the entire Muslim religion based on the behavior of a few, while simultaneously casting all white terrorists as nothing more than mentally unstable loners. I don't need to belabor the point, it's been made countless times before.

If the GOP wants to shed that image, it would behoove them to address those questions, rather than cook up some "hypocrisy" by pointing to a party from the 1860s who shares nothing with the current Democratic party, save the name.

 

[ryzno]

shares nothing with the current Democratic party,

Really? Was it not Obama and the left that have not done anything for people of color except Muslims and Mexicans the last 8 years?

 

[mustafur]

When people from Australia understand the Southern Strategy and Americans into politics don't.

Funny times we live in

 

[TenEightyOne]

Really? Was it not Obama and the left that have not done anything for people of color except Muslims and Mexicans the last 8 years?

Bollocks.

When a president acts for a country he acts for everybody. The whole point of equality is that no group is singled out for special treatment... so why would you expect a huge pro-black agenda from Obama?

If a president acted particularly for pro-White causes (the insanity of which is that North Africans are included in that for US legal purposes) then the president would be a stinker, and I'm sure you'd call it if the boot was on the other foot.