Hillary: All Washed Up?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]
rainjack wrote:

It’s not my theory. Read the other posts. All I am saying is that voting for someone based on the color of their skin is just as racist as not voting for someone for the same reason.

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good stuff, RJ - voting for someone who is black because they are black is the same as not voting for someone who is white because they are white.

If you are faced with two candidates, and you wouldn’t vote for one of them based on their race, regardless of what race that is, it’s the same sin.[/quote]

Victor Davis Hanson put it well the other day:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGQzMmVjNWE0MWYxNGZkZmMzMDJjNGUwZGMwNDM0ZjM=

[i]Beyond Race and Gender? [Victor Davis Hanson]

This is apparently the Orwellian Democratic message to the white male:

If you’re African-American, then it’s OK that you express racial solidarity and vote for Sen. Obama by margins approaching 90 percent - while at the same time white males must prove that they are not racialists by having the courage to ‘do the right thing’ by likewise voting for an African-American. That apparently would make Michelle Obama proud of her country for the first time in her life.

If you vote for Hillary, likewise you transcend your gender and do the right thing - and so join the legion of feminists for whom her shared womanhood was their signature issue.

But if you were to vote for John McCain? You would, of course, reveal a tribal mentality by forgoing principle and obviously allying yourself along comfortable racial and gender lines.[/i]

42

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have seen countless interviews and stories of black women that were torn whether to vote for Hillary, because she is a woman, or Obama because she is black.

That was low…even for you.[/quote]

I have to back him up on this one. I don’t watch the news all the time but in the usual perusing of interviews I have seen 7 to date that expressed exactly this view " I am torn because I am black and a woman"

43

[i]Hillarymandias

I met a pollster from an antique land,
Who said–"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand, one in Texas…, one near Canton,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose brow,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The electorate that mocked them, and the press that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Hillarymandias,
Look on my resume and campaign fundraising, ye fellow Democrats, and despair!
Nothing else remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away…[/i]

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Show me where I ever said I wondered. I am just stating the fact that racism is not the one way street some on here like to think it is. [/quote]

Who has said “racism” is a one way street? With regards to those in majority, however, and the social power that goes along with it, “negative racism” does not involve simply recognizing someone else’s race and it does not involve those in minority population who would like to finally see someone like them finally reach that position.

To imply otherwise would be to claim the entire Civil Rights movement was “negatively racist” because blacks wanted the same social power granted the majority.

[quote]
I can only speak for myself, and there has never been a woman worth voting for that has run. But I do vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson (sp) every 6 years as my Senator.

I supported ALan Keyes 4 years ago. I would eat a mile of shit to see Walter Williams run and win the presidential nomination. I would vote for Clarence Thomas at the drop of a hat. But they, nor any black candidate similar in beliefs has even ran for President.

I would have to ask those that think we need a black/woman president just for the shits and giggles, if they would vote for the above mentioned people as readily as they think we should vote for Obama? [/quote]

I would hope no one is voting for him for “shits and giggles”. I also doubt that Jesse Jackson or Sharpton would be winning any elections. There seems to be a lot of belittling coming from your side of the aisle as if Obama ranks right along with everyone else I just mentioned.

For the record, you will notice that I have not mentioned who I am voting for because I haven’t made that final decision yet. My decision will not be made for “shits and giggles” like you seem to believe is the case with anyone who even mentions a vote for Obama while also noticing his race.

[quote]
Who said there was anything wrong with it? What’s wrong with not wanting it? [/quote]

In America, so far, you can “want” anything you damn well please. However, it is a little childish to claim on one hand that someone who wants a black president FINALLY is “negatively racist” considering the fact that we have never had one because of past (and ongoing) issues with race in this country.

You mentioned there not being anyone to vote for before. Gee, I truly have to ask (even though I doubt I will get a truthful response) if you think George Bush, given every “deficit” that gets talked about in his regard, would have been elected president if he were black.

Hell, would he have even gotten into the same colleges or been able to downplay his wonderful GPA in school?

[quote]
Further, like Orion stated, if the candidates are so alike, then why not use this election as the time to finally push that through?

Because I don’t think we need a token minority running the country just for the sake of having a token minority run the country. Obama will probably get as many “for” votes because he is black as he will “against” votes for the same reason.[/quote]

If you can’t tell the difference, then please don’t respond to this post. I don’t have the time. No one is talking about “token black guys”. Since when has a “token black guy” ever come that close to the presidency?

Again, if wanting to finally see what has never been seen because of racial differences makes one “negatively racist”, then the entire Civil Rights movement was as well.

45

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
As far as this topic, we live in a country that has NEVER seen a president of any other race or sex yet you all wonder why some people might vote on those terms? Do we really need to discuss under-representation again?

Show me where I ever said I wondered. I am just stating the fact that racism is not the one way street some on here like to think it is.

If things were truly equal, the race or sex of the individual would matter so little that we would have seen a woman or black person in office by now…but we have NOT. Why is that?

I can only speak for myself, and there has never been a woman worth voting for that has run. But I do vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson (sp) every 6 years as my Senator.

I supported ALan Keyes 4 years ago. I would eat a mile of shit to see Walter Williams run and win the presidential nomination. I would vote for Clarence Thomas at the drop of a hat. But they, nor any black candidate similar in beliefs has even ran for President.

I would have to ask those that think we need a black/woman president just for the shits and giggles, if they would vote for the above mentioned people as readily as they think we should vote for Obama?

Therefore, in a world where every single solitary election has been won by a white guy, what pray fucking tell is the problem with wanting to FINALLY see one of those “minority” groups in office?

Who said there was anything wrong with it? What’s wrong with not wanting it?

Further, like Orion stated, if the candidates are so alike, then why not use this election as the time to finally push that through?

Because I don’t think we need a token minority running the country just for the sake of having a token minority run the country. Obama will probably get as many “for” votes because he is black as he will “against” votes for the same reason.

I think the racism you conveniently ignore is no different than the racism you accuse others of ignoring.

I very, VERY rarely let myself get into these discussions, but I couldn’t help commenting on the brilliance of this post. I would vote for Keyes, Williams or Thomas over any candidate that either party has run in the last 20 years… enthusiastically. Anybody concerned about having a black president for the sake of it better enjoy it while, no if they can if Obama wins because he will be the last one we see for at least a generation.

Why? Because he will be an absolute, unleashed, unmitigated CATASTROPHE on every level. Not because he’s black, but because he IS NOT A PRESIDENT. He’s an intelligent child with no idea whatever of what he is getting himself into. He will get us laughed or bombed off the international stage while simultaneously destroying what’s left of the economy thus ensuring that no black person will have a shot after him for the foreseeable future.

No point arguing. Fasten your belts. WE WILL SEE.[/quote]

Our last/current president was/is “a president”? This is ridiculous. Our current president creates his own words yet people are calling Obama an “intelligent child”.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A bunch of rambling.
[/quote]

You are the one using the word negative racism. You are the one that only sees racism going in one direction. Me pointing out the obvious fact that racism is not just what you want it to be is not calling any negativity to either side of the coin.

I really don’t care who you vote for. Just stop making the ignorant assumption that the only reason to come out against a black candidate is because of the color of their skin.

For crying out loud - you are the one that brought racism into this thread from another one. And you want to wag your finger at me?

I am pretty sure it is you who is wasting my time - not the other way around.

47

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You are the one that only sees racism going in one direction.[/quote]

Bullshit. I wrote “negative racism” because you all are acting as if any mention of wanting equality is also “RACIST”. Well, we can play that game, but first I am going to make the point that “negative racism” would involve one party having some type of advantage, whether it be physical, social, financial or whatever, and not simply the acknowledgment of “race”.

Again, to claim otherwise would be to claim any act of advancement concerning minorities in this country is the same type of racism as seen with the KKK.

[quote]
For crying out loud - you are the one that brought racism into this thread from another one. And you want to wag your finger at me? [/quote]

I brought it in? Uh, I responded in sarcasm to someone else’s post yet I STILL brought it in?

What the fuck is wrong with some of you?

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Our last/current president was/is “a president”? This is ridiculous. Our current president creates his own words yet people are calling Obama an “intelligent child”.[/quote]

If Ronald McDonald were in the white house the Obama campaign would still be a sing a long substance free zone. The two have nothing to do with each other. Don’t make the mistake of thinking because I have zero respect for Obama and hate Hillary’s guts that I like anybody else.

I reluctantly voted for our current president only to keep a treasonous low life out of the White House who, had he lived in the forties would have been dangling in the gallows.

If I were black I’d be on my knees begging the Almighty not to give the real racists in this country a great big “I TOLD YOU SO” in the person of Barack Obama. I do judge men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Like Rainjack I supported Alan Keyes who is black as the ace of spades and I would have been proud to call Mr. President.

I haven’t really liked a President since Ronald Regan.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You are the one that only sees racism going in one direction.

Bullshit. I wrote “negative racism” because you all are acting as if any mention of wanting equality is also “RACIST”. Well, we can play that game, but first I am going to make the point that “negative racism” would involve one party having some type of advantage, whether it be physical, social, financial or whatever, and not simply the acknowledgment of “race”.[/quote]

I make no distinction, mainly because at this level of politics, it is a cop out. Racism is racism. I don’t care what color of fucking ribbon you want to put on it, making decisions based soley on the color of one’s skin can be called nothing but. Barack makes a fuckload more money than any white guy I know and he is also better educated.

It is you that wants to attach rankings to the practice.

Come on. That’s just flat out bullshit and you know it. How about the damn black candidate isn’t worth voting for - just like the white son of a bitches that dropped out already? How is that conjuring images of lynchings? You seem to think everyone that disagrees with you is an extremist.

My question is: What’s wrong with you?

50

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I make no distinction, mainly because at this level of politics, it is a cop out. Racism is racism. I don’t care what color of fucking ribbon you want to put on it, making decisions based soley on the color of one’s skin can be called nothing but. Barack makes a fuckload more money than any white guy I know and he is also better educated. [/quote]

So. I bet I probably make more money than a lot of white guys. That doesn’t mean I don’t experience racism and that it hasn’t been an obstacle. I was simply raised with the knowledge that it was present so I had to do better in school and at work than those in majority just to be seen as equal. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that this isn’t the case in this country.

As long as you hold that view, any discussion is rather pointless.

[quote]
It is you that wants to attach rankings to the practice. [/quote]

Again, either the Civil Rights movement was RACIST like the KKK or you have no point. There IS a difference.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
So. I bet I probably make more money than a lot of white guys. That doesn’t mean I don’t experience racism and that it hasn’t been an obstacle. I was simply raised with the knowledge that it was present so I had to do better in school and at work than those in majority just to be seen as equal. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that this isn’t the case in this country.[/quote]

So? You’re the one that brought the financial aspect into this. Obama is winning the nomination by most every estimate I have seen. He out raised Hilary. I think the playing field is as level as it can be for a black (or any non-Clinton for that matter) to make an honest run at the whitehouse on the democratic ticket.

You’d think after making as many wrong assumption about me as you have, you’d stop - think - and maybe adjust your prejudging speed. I have never dismissed racism - the racism you experienced. I have never excused it. And you know damn good and well that I have not ignored it.

That’s your call.

[quote]Again, either the Civil Rights movement was RACIST like the KKK or you have no point. There IS a difference.
[/quote]

Not like the KKK, but based on the color of one’s skin? Yes. Therefore in it’s purest sense - a racist movement. I think Malcom X kinda said the same thing.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Again, either the Civil Rights movement was RACIST like the KKK or you have no point. There IS a difference.[/quote]

You said this:

  1. The Civil Rights movement wanted equality of opportunity where color was irrelevant.

  2. The KKK want white dominance at the exclusion of ethnic minorities, including legal protections of that dominance, making color the ultimate relevant factor.

RJ’s point - I believe - is that choosing someone by virtue of their race looks more like #2 much more than it looks like #1. And that is correct.

53

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Again, either the Civil Rights movement was RACIST like the KKK or you have no point. There IS a difference.

You said this:

Again, to claim otherwise would be to claim any act of advancement concerning minorities in this country is the same type of racism as seen with the KKK.

  1. The Civil Rights movement wanted equality of opportunity where color was irrelevant.

  2. The KKK want white dominance at the exclusion of ethnic minorities, including legal protections of that dominance, making color the ultimate relevant factor.

RJ’s point - I believe - is that choosing someone by virtue of their race looks more like #2 much more than it looks like #1. And that is correct.[/quote]

Choosing someone JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK WITH NO OTHER REASONS WHATSOEVER would be stupid, not RACIST. Racism, the kind that has been fought in this country for centuries, involves one party in a superior social position than another.

Does this just include white people? Of course not. The black guys on a basketball court who won’t let the white guy play just because he’s white are also the same type of racists. Why? they are in control of that court.

To claim that anyone who would like for there to finally be a black president or a woman president is “racist” or “sexist” is ridiculous. It is so because blacks and women are not in control in this country. Blacks are not the majority in this society.

54

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Not like the KKK, but based on the color of one’s skin? Yes. Therefore in it’s purest sense - a racist movement. I think Malcom X kinda said the same thing.

[/quote]

Please…do tell.

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
To claim that anyone who would like for there to finally be a black president or a woman president is “racist” or “sexist” is ridiculous. It is so because blacks and women are not in control in this country. Blacks are not the majority in this society.
[/quote]

Show me where this is being claimed. If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I am talking exclusively about voting - not wanting.

Wants are just that. I want to see a white guy run for 1500 yards in the NFL. Am I a racist?

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Show me where this is being claimed. If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I am talking exclusively about voting - not wanting.
[/quote]

Regardless of what you were talking about (we could be talking about moon landings), to claim that VOTING (see, I capitalized it) for a black man is racist if you actually consider his race is just wrong. Racism in this country is not simply “noticing another race” or “wanting your own race to win at something that it has never won before because of a history of bullshit”.

57

In the end, we’re all African Americans. Why the fighting?

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Choosing someone JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK WITH NO OTHER REASONS WHATSOEVER would be stupid, not RACIST. Racism, the kind that has been fought in this country for centuries, involves one party in a superior social position than another.[/quote]

No, it is racist. Your arbitrary confounding of racism notwithstanding, when you assign any kind of value or privilege on the basis of ethnicity alone, it is racism - “superiority” has nothing to do with it.

Just because you want to absolve non-whites of prejudiced behavior by carving out an exemption doesn’t make it so.

And more besides, “reverse racism” isn’t even justified for any benefits it can generate - if there are racist people in the world and we want to get them to change their ways, how exactly do we have the moral upper hand in indulging in the same behavior? You don’t - you reinforce it. That person has an easy out: “hey, if he is voting for his guy because he is black, that means I can vote for my guy because he is white.”

But this is yet another poor analogy.

In an election, who controls your vote? You get your own vote - you owe it to no one. White people aren’t pressuring you to vote white.

If a white man chooses not to vote for Obama because of his race, that’s racist, regardless of ephemeral theories on “superiority”, because he controls his own vote. If a black man votes for Obama because he is black, same phenomenon - there was no “control of society” issues to sift through. That is a diversion.

“Control” and “majority” are completely irrelevant to the individual’s decision to make a decision based on racial prejudice. It is a cop out.

You can vote for whomever you want, in private, and never have anyone pressure you into going with the majority. As such, any decision you make that privileges someone because of their race is a racist move, white, black, any color.

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Not like the KKK, but based on the color of one’s skin? Yes. Therefore in it’s purest sense - a racist movement. I think Malcom X kinda said the same thing.

Please…do tell.[/quote]

He was all about black power. Black empowerment. He didn’t so much care about MLK’s dream. He wanted blacks to to get their seat at the table whether it was given, or taken.

Bottom line - it was about skin color. How can it not be a racist movement? Now before you go off assuming shit again, I am not using racism as a negative. You seem to think that it has only one meaning.

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Wants are just that. I want to see a white guy run for 1500 yards in the NFL. Am I a racist? [/quote]

Presumably, because of this, a coach is justified in signing a white running back on the sole basis that he is white.

Makes sense, right? I mean, black athletes are in the majority in the league, right?