Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.
Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.
[/quote]
Why should we have to listen to angry black men? Why do we have to sit quietly and nod while someone rants in our faces about how evil we are? How long must the descendants of whites alive in the 1850’s feel guilty because some black person didn’t get their dream job in 1972?
Tough fucking shit. The world is evil and cruel. Fucking live with it already. Move to fucking Zimbabwe, where a murderous thug named Mugabe is destroying the country, all in the name of Black Liberation.
Why should we have to listen to angry black men?
[/quote]
You tell us. Why should you? To my knowledge, this man’s sermon was not broadcast into your home against your will and you weren’t forced to go to his church. In fact, you probably wouldn’t even know the man existed if not for your own desire (and that of those like you) to shine a light on this issue.
You are claiming you are a victim?
I’ve asked you before if you actually teach children. When I do have a kid, let me know where you work…so we can set up a restraining order.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I say caution, because that’s all it is. Not blind, running down the street screaming panic, but caution
You actually think that Obama meant that white people are “blind running down the street screaming panic” afraid? Yes, you are arguing semantics all while faking offense at what you yourself admit is the truth…as long as no one calls it “fear”.[/quote]
Calmly getting up, thanking the kids for their time and telling them that some pressing matter required his attention would’ve done the job.
Slack-jawed apathy or flailing panic aren’t the two only choices here.[/quote]
You just want to bash for the sake of bashing. That is fine, but I wouldn’t spend time accusing others bashing Obama for the sake of bashing as well.
Bush took a few minutes to process the information and in so doing, he didn’t startle the kids. You may think there was a better course, but his actions didn’t amount to dome dereliction of duty.
[quote]Besides, the point was that for all his experience (governor of the state with the 2nd largest GDP, I think it was Rainjack who mentioned it) and experienced cabinet, etc. Bush has taken a lot of bad decisions along the way.
The point being that no one can really ascertain how someone is going to perform as president until they actually see that person performing as president.[/quote]
So what? Does that mean that we don’t our best prior to that to come to the most informed decision?
That is the essence of the democratic audit. There are plenty of things we can’t know, but we just do the best job we can with what we can.
So odd - were you this upset when there comments about McCain and Iran and al-Qaeda? Or was that a worthwhile discussion to consider whether McCain had the intelligence and judgment in the area of foreign policy?
We can debate Obama’s policies, but there isn’t much to debate. His judgment, however, certainly distinguishes himself from other candidates and is worthy of debate.
How do we know? Obama has bent over backwards to mortgage his entire campaign on the essence that he has the best judgment to lead the way. That is what he is telling America makes him the best candidate.
So here we have Obama offering judgment as the sine qua non of his candidacy - not experience, not resume, not policy choices - and a lengthy, penetrating discussion of his judgment is to be avoided as bad form?
C’mon. Be serious. Maybe some folks are indulging in overreach on the issue - but that is a hell of a lot better than underreach.
In one sense, you are right - these issues should have come up a long time ago, but it is well detailed why it never did. But it wasn’t done, and it is late in the day - it is time to raise the issue and hash it out.
But, Obama essentially skated through analysis-free up to this point, and now it has come to a head all at once.
Due diligence means asking tough questions - if Obama isn’t up to it, find a different job.
“Typical white person” was Obama’s words, and I have said that I think the reaction has been exaggerated, but Obama should have to explain why Imus should be held accountable in a way that he shouldn’t. Fair question.
The Clinton Juggernaut is overstated, largely because Hillary is such a flawed candidate with so much baggage. They are powerful, but a great deal of animosity has put a brake on their invincibility. Plenty of Democrats would love to see the Clinton era at an end.
Obama is a pop-culture candidate - the Democrats have pushed hard to back because of what he appears to be, not necessarily what he is. He has a ton of support - that is why he is where he is today. That is a damnation of the flakiness of the liberal-left more than anything - they want a presidential “symbol”, rather than an honest-to-goodness executive.
I don’t suggest Obama doesn’t have support - he is the likely nominee. But as more information continues to surface, Obama looks like a weaker and weaker candidate. Me saying so as a matter of opinion is not intolerable.
The primary focus of the US President - where he acts with the most of his power and responsibility - is in foreign policy. The President does plenty of other things, but adequacy as a Commander in Chief is the one non-negotiable necessary condition of the job, regardless of how good he is in other roles.
Most of the backlash you are seeing now is a reaction to Obama getting the kid gloves treatment for so long. Whether it is the pastor issue or the Rezko affair, many people see Obama’s harsh treatment as a comeuppance.
The other candidates deserve scrutiny, too, I agree - but the very issue Obama is trying to sell us all on is the one under attack. And that is completely fair.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So odd - were you this upset when there comments about McCain and Iran and al-Qaeda? Or was that a worthwhile discussion to consider whether McCain had the intelligence and judgment in the area of foreign policy?[/quote]
The difference being that pros and cons where rather quickly discussed and people’s various conclusions given.
McCain’s mis-statement or misunderstanding didn’t turn in a week long circus where entire pages were wasted arguing in circles about the most insignificant details. It didn’t devolve in people starting threads about McCain’s worth as a father or questioning his service record.
Right. The other candidates won’t require judgement, or haven’t specifically brought it up, so let’s not examine theirs.
What is bad form is analyzing to death a single fact about the man. His judgement came into play at more times in his life than when going to church on sundays.
A true, honest evaluation of anything involves looking at the entirety of whatever is being evaluated; it involves weighing the pros and the cons.
If you’re evaluating a house for purchase, you don’t stop at the first squeaky door and then spend the rest of the inspection bemoaning that damn squeaking door while dismissing the entire house.
At some point, it stops being anything remotely resembling a vetting or an audit and simply becomes an organized smear.
“Typical white person” is quite a bit different from “nappy-headed hoes.” If he’d said “in retarded cracker fashion…” I’d see your point.
Obama is being held up to a standard of perfection no one can meet. He’s not allowed a single mistake, a single questionable judgment. Even when he admits that he should have done things differently, he’s taken to task about it. The man simply can’t win.
So he won all those primaries because of flakes?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, tolerable or not. What I find disingenuous is to try and keep up the pretense of “objective appraisal” of the man when objectivity has been nowhere to be seen.
Strange - is the irony lost on you as to what the “truth” really is, once an honest discussion is started?
The racist crackpot Wright is not offering an honest discussion on race - he is offering one-sided radical politics from the pulpit.
You seem interested in the value of people having to hear things they might not want to hear as a part of the race discussion. Are you actually prepared to put all the cards on the table and hear out all sides?
Or does “hearing things that people don’t want to hear” mean being selective with the issues you like and leaving out entire swaths of perspective in the name of political correctness?
Because if you are truly interested in a frank, open discussion on race that should be all about having to hear the “truth”, no matter whose ox is gored, the fantastic irony is that I doubt that the promoters of “truth” really want or are prepared for that to happen.[/quote]
The irony is…that when I stated that…I wasn’t excluding anybody,yet my “stance” was chosen for me…I don’t support Rev.Wright’s statements. I think I’ve put plenty out on the table to show that I’m all for honest discussion about race. To have an honest discussion about race would assume that would include people of other races and their perspectives,right??
Besides,all you did was just re-iterate my problems with these discussions. People should put it all out on the table…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.
Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.
Why should we have to listen to angry black men? Why do we have to sit quietly and nod while someone rants in our faces about how evil we are? How long must the descendants of whites alive in the 1850’s feel guilty because some black person didn’t get their dream job in 1972?
Tough fucking shit. The world is evil and cruel. Fucking live with it already. Move to fucking Zimbabwe, where a murderous thug named Mugabe is destroying the country, all in the name of Black Liberation.
[/quote]
Forgive me Prof X while I defend your statement…since I agreed with it: The basic point is that discussing and changing racism will not be easy…and that no matter what,someone will be offended by something said…THATS ALL HE SAID…nothing more. These threads prove that true. So how is this being taken out of context as a defense for Rev.Wright’s comments?? Because we’re black?? Its absurd…but thats how you are playing it out to be.
Also,you’re “forced” to listen to “angry black men” the same amount you’re forced to post on this website. Hell…how is it that possibly the only TWO black males who participate in these discussions have you so riled up? Why is that you’re so offended,but at the same…are insensitive to what you post…example: you basically just told us to go back to Africa.
Take your own advice and just deal with it…tough shit,right? Talk about rants. Yes,the world is evil and cruel…thats why this thread exists. And contrary to what you think…nobody is asking for shit. Lol…this is coming from someone who feels he was victimized and forced to help Katrina victims. Do you truly want to be taken seriously or do you just love stirring up shit?
Taking offense to an obvious truth about race discussion makes no sense…and says a lot about you.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.
Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.
Why should we have to listen to angry black men? Why do we have to sit quietly and nod while someone rants in our faces about how evil we are? How long must the descendants of whites alive in the 1850’s feel guilty because some black person didn’t get their dream job in 1972?
Tough fucking shit. The world is evil and cruel. Fucking live with it already. Move to fucking Zimbabwe, where a murderous thug named Mugabe is destroying the country, all in the name of Black Liberation.
Forgive me Prof X while I defend your statement…since I agreed with it: The basic point is that discussing and changing racism will not be easy…and that no matter what,someone will be offended by something said…THATS ALL HE SAID…nothing more. These threads prove that true. So how is this being taken out of context as a defense for Rev.Wright’s comments?? Because we’re black?? Its absurd…but thats how you are playing it out to be.
Also,you’re “forced” to listen to “angry black men” the same amount you’re forced to post on this website. Hell…how is it that possibly the only TWO black males who participate in these discussions have you so riled up? Why is that you’re so offended,but at the same…are insensitive to what you post…example: you basically just told us to go back to Africa.
Take your own advice and just deal with it…tough shit,right? Talk about rants. Yes,the world is evil and cruel…thats why this thread exists. And contrary to what you think…nobody is asking for shit. Lol…this is coming from someone who feels he was victimized and forced to help Katrina victims. Do you truly want to be taken seriously or do you just love stirring up shit?
Taking offense to an obvious truth about race discussion makes no sense…and says a lot about you. [/quote]
Well said. It is like they believe their position is valid out of sheer numbers…which is the singular definition of any perception of “white privilege” in this country. The majority sets the norms whether it be clothing, or how someone should look. They continue to deny this while at the same time enforcing it yet they still don’t see the problem.
They will tear a man down for saying, “typical white person” and have the fault of mind to directly relate this to “knappy headed hoes”. They REALLY think the two are the same?
Are they really that clueless?
I can guarantee if Obama had said, “The Typical black person in America will probably choose a Baptist church, especially in the South”, that no one would have taken offense. Why? It is because it is pretty much true even though I personally was raised Pentecostal. What he stated wasn’t even an insult. It was a FACT that nearly every single poster eventually admitted in this thread but called it “caution” as if they really thought Obama meant White people run screaming from the room the moment a black person walks in.
It means not one white person anywhere has the right to act like they are being degraded by “typical white person”. In fact, they don’t even seem to be personally offended. They are simply ranting so they can look like victims.
Are some really this clueless? Some believe that a drastic change is racist attitudes can come without BOTH sides possibly hearing something they may not like?
These threads prove a problem in America, and again, the problem is NOT Obama or anything he has stated thus far.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
new2training wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
“But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
Apparently, white culture has taught us to fear black men. I never knew…
This is just one more number to add to my “Obama is racist equation”
His wife says “this is the first time that I’ve ever been proud of my country”.
His Pastor rattles off a chain of racist statements, thrown in with many anti-American comments…from the pulpit.
Now Obama-rama himself says “the typical white person”.
1+1+1=3
The moronic white people who actually intend to vote for this racist pig better think twice.
Indeed 1+1+1= 3 but 3 is not a high enough score to call him a racist pig on my scorecard.
He attended a Church for 20 FREAKING YEARS where the Pastor spouted racist lies from the pulpit and he did NOTHING about it.
Did he:
Publicly correct the Pastor?
No
Did he leave the Church?
No
Did he speak out against the Pastors beliefs BEFORE he was a candidate for President?
No
Therefore, one has to assume that he at least agrees in part with what that lying racist bastard shouted from the pulpit.
Keep in mind that if it were any republican candidate that he would have already pulled out of the race by now.
Just think back to the Trent Lot tar and feathering. And what did he say? He said at a party for retiring Strom Thurmond that he (Thurmond) would have made a good President.
The left SCREAMED RACIST and Lott had to step down from his position as Majority leader.
Keep in mind it was a harmless comment at an OLD MANS BIRTHDAY PARTY!
Yes…I’m fucking sick of the double standard!
Back to Obama-rama…
It was very telling that his wife stated “this is the first time I’ve been proud of my country” in reference to Obama’s candidacy.
Now why do you suppose she said such a thing?
Did she say it because she loves all white people and that she is proud of her country?
NO.
And finally Obama’s own “the typical white person” comment if said by McCain he would have to drop out of the race.
Picture it.
McCain: “If you take the typical black person…”
If you think really hard it’s pretty easy to connect the dots on this one. Obama is attempting to pull a very well planned ruse on the American voter.
And…it has been busted!
Except that this pastor did not do anything to qualify as a lying racist bastard which is easily verifiable by listening to his speeches that were not shortened and taken out of context.
The American government gave AIDS to the black population?
And that we (Americans) are no better than El Quida?
Keep posting, and show us all how stupid you are.
Post proof or shut up.
And the whole truth, not the Fox News 30 second loop…
Proof that the US government didn’t give black people the AIDS virus?
Ha ha…why don’t you go plauge an Austrian web site?
no, proof that he said what you claimed he did.
With at least 3 minutes before and after he says it, because those Fox News bits are excellent character assassination but poor journalism.
I never stated anywhere that I heard him speak on Fox. In fact, I didn’t hear it on Fox.
Please don’t ever let facts get in the way of your wacky far left nonsense.
You’re a loon…go away.
[/quote]
You still fail to come up with any proof that he said what you said he did .
The best you can come up with is hearsay of hearsay.
Anything else the voices in your head would want to let us know?
Plus, you insufferable short attention spanned fool, politically I stand to your right on most issues.
Fuck off, commie.
But not before you presented proof for your three page smear attempt of someone you never met.
The difference being that pros and cons where rather quickly discussed and people’s various conclusions given.
McCain’s mis-statement or misunderstanding didn’t turn in a week long circus where entire pages were wasted arguing in circles about the most insignificant details. It didn’t devolve in people starting threads about McCain’s worth as a father or questioning his service record.[/quote]
If it is the duration of the comments that bother you, no problem - but that shouldn’t forestall legitimate criticism.
Who said not to examine the other candidates’ judgment? By all means, let’s have at it. I think Hillary has overstated hers as well by trying to rely on the “experience” card - largely experience she really doesn’t have.
We can take a look at judgment of all the candidates - the problem is no one spent any time on Obama until only recently. As such, there is some catching up to do. Both Hillary and McCain have been vetted aplenty - and deserve more - but Obama has largely been ignored until recently.
That stinks for Obama and his supporters that would prefer not to shine lights into dark places, but it is part of the program.
I don’t doubt it - so where? Surely Obama is happy to advertise where that judgment was exercised. Now he can go forth and counter the criticism with examples of his statesmanlike judgment elsewhere - and I happily await that.
But, you see, that is exactly what I have been commenting on this entire time - now we are finally having a reckoning on the one trait Obama tries to distinguish himself on, and there is a concern Obama really doesn’t have much to counter with.
Certainly there is nothing in his political experience - and that is why he wants to deflect focus on his public record.
[quote]A true, honest evaluation of anything involves looking at the entirety of whatever is being evaluated; it involves weighing the pros and the cons.
If you’re evaluating a house for purchase, you don’t stop at the first squeaky door and then spend the rest of the inspection bemoaning that damn squeaking door while dismissing the entire house.[/quote]
C’mon - for over a year there has been a steady stream of Obamamania, a constant marketing campaign of the candidacy of the New Man. And that is no problem - that is exactly what he should do to advertise himself - I have no objection to that.
Now, when someone finally decides to look at some “cons” on the list, we get tooth-gnashing over being “unfair” to Obama?
Please. Obama has had nothing but a perfect batting average of “pros” for over a year’s worth of campaigning.
It is finally now that we get some objectivity - a few “cons” to go with the master list of “pros” that make up the list of supporters are building a secular religion around.
Not really - it is trafficking in an inappropriate stereotype. One could be chalked up to a sloppy use of slang - the other can’t be.
Give me a break. Obama - finally - is being treated like a politician running for office rather than a secular messiah. He is finally being challenged on judgment calls he has made. There is perhaps no modern candidate who has enjoyed such “hands off” lack of scrutiny for the duration of his campaign - and you want to pretend that he is being picked on and held to a standard he can never meet?
This is ridiculous. No one is being unfair to poor Obama. He has been brought to earth, no more, no less. And it should have been done a long time ago when there were more than two candidates left standing for the nomination.
I wish I could say otherwise. Obama won primaries because left-liberals want a second coming of a made-for-TV Kennedy-esque candidate. They are willing to forgive alot to get a candidate in office that is a living, breathing “symbol”.
I am not trying to be flip - there is not one thing in Obama’s history that suggests he is a good candidate for the job of the President. Go look at his career. Look for strong leadership in any of the jobs he has held. It’s empty.
It isn’t personal - I just think the idea of a “symbolic” president is laughable, and I would want someone with at least some evidence of leadership in their life to get the job of Leader of the Free World.
We have gone through the past 8 years of an administration that many critics have derided as “incompetent” - if true, those critics should be putting a premium on competence. Obama is not that candidate.
In all seriousness, Pookie, you have no shortage of snark for politicians you haven’t liked - plenty of it. And that is no problem - it is part of the fun of reading some of your posts.
Why suddenly are you so concerned that everyone keep up Puritanical manners when dealing with Obama?
And the idea that there is “no objectivity to be seen” is simply false.
I don’t disagree with you that some of the animosity toward Obama is excessive - but I can tell you as one of the posters who originally raised these political issues in objective fashion for discussion, myself and others were met with teary tantrums that we were acting in bad faith.
I’ll put it another way - Obama deserves just as much or just as little scorn as does a George W. Bush. Fair enough?
The irony is…that when I stated that…I wasn’t excluding anybody,yet my “stance” was chosen for me…I don’t support Rev.Wright’s statements. I think I’ve put plenty out on the table to show that I’m all for honest discussion about race. To have an honest discussion about race would assume that would include people of other races and their perspectives,right??
Besides,all you did was just re-iterate my problems with these discussions. People should put it all out on the table…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.[/quote]
Here is the thing - I agree with you 100%.
You said this:
To which I would say the exact same thing about the “other side” - some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of non-racial problems and want to establish “truths” from their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
That was precisely the point I was raising - a good faith discussion with all the cards on the table means challenging both sides. You seem really focused on the people who won’t recognize that race is still a problem in the modern era - are you prepared to demand an accounting to the race-baiters who cry “victim of institutional racism!!!” no matter what the facts or context?
Again, an honest frank discussion must call out all parties that are causing problems with their ignorance.
I respect your views in this matter - do you think such an honest frank discussion could take place on such a two way street?
The irony is…that when I stated that…I wasn’t excluding anybody,yet my “stance” was chosen for me…I don’t support Rev.Wright’s statements. I think I’ve put plenty out on the table to show that I’m all for honest discussion about race. To have an honest discussion about race would assume that would include people of other races and their perspectives,right??
Besides,all you did was just re-iterate my problems with these discussions. People should put it all out on the table…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
Here is the thing - I agree with you 100%.
You said this:
…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
To which I would say the exact same thing about the “other side” - some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of non-racial problems and want to establish “truths” from their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
That was precisely the point I was raising - a good faith discussion with all the cards on the table means challenging both sides. You seem really focused on the people who won’t recognize that race is still a problem in the modern era - are you prepared to demand an accounting to the race-baiters who cry “victim of institutional racism!!!” no matter what the facts or context?
Again, an honest frank discussion must call out all parties that are causing problems with their ignorance.
I respect your views in this matter - do you think such an honest frank discussion could take place on such a two way street?[/quote]
Yeah…we’re on the same page. I would address everything. I’m also aware that if MORE black people posted,I’m pretty sure that I will piss off someone of my own race at some point…I guarantee it. But like you already recognize,getting people on those two way streets together is the key…and hardest step to get pass.
The irony is…that when I stated that…I wasn’t excluding anybody,yet my “stance” was chosen for me…I don’t support Rev.Wright’s statements. I think I’ve put plenty out on the table to show that I’m all for honest discussion about race. To have an honest discussion about race would assume that would include people of other races and their perspectives,right??
Besides,all you did was just re-iterate my problems with these discussions. People should put it all out on the table…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
Here is the thing - I agree with you 100%.
You said this:
…but some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of race and want to establish “truths” from only their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
To which I would say the exact same thing about the “other side” - some are pretending to be oblivious to certain aspects of non-racial problems and want to establish “truths” from their perspectives to suit their own agendas.
That was precisely the point I was raising - a good faith discussion with all the cards on the table means challenging both sides. You seem really focused on the people who won’t recognize that race is still a problem in the modern era - are you prepared to demand an accounting to the race-baiters who cry “victim of institutional racism!!!” no matter what the facts or context?
Again, an honest frank discussion must call out all parties that are causing problems with their ignorance.
I respect your views in this matter - do you think such an honest frank discussion could take place on such a two way street?
Yeah…we’re on the same page. I would address everything. I’m also aware that if MORE black people posted,I’m pretty sure that I will piss off someone of my own race at some point…I guarantee it. But like you already recognize,getting people on those two way streets together is the key…and hardest step to get pass.[/quote]
Which makes waiting for any and every comment that can be twisted into a negative pointless…yet here we are.
“Typical white people” now means the same as "knappy headed hoes’…and people really believe this bullshit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
“Typical white people” now means the same as "knappy headed hoes’…and people really believe this bullshit.[/quote]
I treat the two statements different solely because of who the two men are. One is a politician running for president, the other is a radio personality.
[quote]Ultimate Badass wrote:
Professor X wrote:
“Typical white people” now means the same as "knappy headed hoes’…and people really believe this bullshit.
I treat the two statements different solely because of who the two men are. One is a politician running for president, the other is a radio personality.[/quote]
That makes no sense. Either the statement is NEGATIVE or it isn’t. If we now can’t speak about white people as a group, then why do blacks get described in this way all of the time? You all keep mentioning Jesse Jackson and Sharpton and referring to them as “black leaders” yet nothing like that is ever even considered for white people.
Saying “typical white person” is no different at all than expecting comments from black men to represent anyone else but themselves…yet whites do this constantly.
Face it, anyone claiming he shouldn’t say what he did is a raving hypocrite who needs to spend more time working on who they see in the mirror and less time trying to control what everyone else says.
Someone running for president should be held to a higher standard then some old ass knucklehead on the radio.
As far as “typical black/white”, I assume it is because as a whole, black people tend to vote the same while white people are more split. Of course there are always exceptions.
Edit: I said vote the same, but I meant vote similar. Semantics, I know.