[quote]BillO21 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
I see your point. I did not intend to say the majority of black people voted for him because of his color. I was speaking of the 20% extra voters and many of the new voters.
Are you saying all of the extra people voting for him had nothing to do with his color?
LOL!!!
But I’m “elitist” if I dare say how ridiculous this is.
Why are you trying to say anything about how an entire group of people voted unless they specifically told you why they voted?
The same way I would say it is wrong if over 90% of whites voted for McCain. [/quote]
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Nobody is denying that…but when you make accusations that the ENTIRE majority voted only for race is ignorant.
Of course some voted based on race alone…as this holds true for people who voted for McCain…just to vote against Obama. Lots of variables as why people voted for whomever.[/quote]
Again it was not my intent to say the entire majority voted for him because of his color. I was speaking of the extra 20% and many of the new voters. I was trying to show this is as bad as 90% of whites voting for McCain.
I am glad this happened because I believe Obama will help the country in ways McCain couldn’t.
I am simply worried about the future when this is acceptible. I am afraid of the racial lines that will be drawn. Well I guess this had to happen before we could take the next step to becoming a society that I hope we can be.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
I see your point. I did not intend to say the majority of black people voted for him because of his color. I was speaking of the 20% extra voters and many of the new voters.
Are you saying all of the extra people voting for him had nothing to do with his color?
LOL!!!
But I’m “elitist” if I dare say how ridiculous this is.
Why are you trying to say anything about how an entire group of people voted unless they specifically told you why they voted?
The same way I would say it is wrong if over 90% of whites voted for McCain.
That didn’t even relate to the question I asked.
LOL!![/quote]
The connection comes from, the 90% of voters not telling me who they voted for, me knowing many of them voted because they think he was the best choice, and me knowing there is no way that many people of one race would vote for someone of the same race without being racially motivated.
[quote]BillO21 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
I see your point. I did not intend to say the majority of black people voted for him because of his color. I was speaking of the 20% extra voters and many of the new voters.
Are you saying all of the extra people voting for him had nothing to do with his color?
LOL!!!
But I’m “elitist” if I dare say how ridiculous this is.
Why are you trying to say anything about how an entire group of people voted unless they specifically told you why they voted?
The same way I would say it is wrong if over 90% of whites voted for McCain.
That didn’t even relate to the question I asked.
LOL!!
The connection comes from, the 90% of voters not telling me who they voted for, me knowing many of them voted because they think he was the best choice, and me knowing there is no way that many people of one race would vote for someone of the same race without being racially motivated.
[/quote]
stellar logic. fyi it was only whites who voted for mccain/obama in anywhere near equal numbers. all other ethnic groups voted for obama by huge margins (~30%). maybe YOU’RE the weird ones?
Professor X doing a good job holding down this thread. Nice work.
[quote]valiance wrote:
There’s a historical reason blacks vote in blocs. It’s because one party was the party of Jim Crow and slavery, and the other lent blacks a helping hand every once in a while.
phil_leotardo wrote:
Actually the Democrats were behind the Jim Crow laws in the South and the Republican Abe Lincoln was the one who ended slavery. Southern Democrats also tried to filibuster the 1965 Voting Act. [/quote]
Regardless of the name of the party there was always one party that helped blacks and one that didn’t (unless there was none). When the party helping them switched, blacks switched their allegiance. It’s not some irrational love for the (D) after a politician’s name. Black people vote for their interests, just like you do! The reason for a lack of ideological diversity amongst black people is because years of discrimination artificially narrowed outcomes so no matter what if you were black, your life was pretty similar to another black guy’s. Republicans want black votes? Maybe stop being racist and promote the growth of a black middle and upper class. It’ll take time and more than token outreach to one or two exceptional blacks like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice.
What you said WAS true (and I appreciate you correcting my sloppiness) but remember it was also Democratic presidents who pushed through the legislation of the civil rights era. And because blacks are disproportionately poor (hundreds of years of slavery and disenfranchisement will do that to you), they benefit disproportionately from those policies which lift up the lower classes–such as the policies of the New Deal which began the shift of blacks to the Democratic party in the first place. With the shift of southern Democrats to the Republican party and the embracing of civil rights by the leaders of the Democrats, black economic interests aligned with their civil rights interests, and that created the solid Democratic block you see today. But you already knew this…
Decent definition of racialism, though I must confess it has always seemed to me a bit of a weasel word/concept. It has always appeared to be a way to sneak racism into polite society by toning it down a bit. The only people I’ve heard use the word “racialist” have been white nationalists and racists. Though I’m using it now… woops… >;)
I think my problem with racialism as a concept is that acting in the best interests to further your racial group necessarily comes at the expense of those outside your racial group (even if its not coupled with the racist idea that you are superior to other racial groups), and such divisive and hostile attitudes are counterproductive to creating a healthy, functioning civil society in a land that’s so multicultural. I don’t deny that all groups have an element of racialism and cliquishness in them and while I can tolerate and understand it, I don’t think that that’s ideal.
Ethnic clannishness is a huge problem in the U.S. (its a large reason why we can’t have a welfare state as they do in many European countries–white people don’t want to feel they’re supporting lazy minorities) and abroad-- look at the Sunni/Shiite or the power struggles of proportionally representative ethnic governments in Africa or the ethnic warfare between the Janjaweed and others in Sudan or even the struggles of French Arabs to fit into French society or for UK legal traditions to assimilate Sharia law. All pretty contentious issues that racialism only exacerbates.
That’s true, but unfortunately Republicans are the party of racists. Most Republicans aren’t racist, but most racists are Republican (though not all as we saw in the Dem primaries). Black people know this and tend to stay away. This is in addition to the natural economic preference for Democrats that blacks already have due to their generally disadvantaged positions.
I would say that generally Republicans like individual blacks but hate blacks as a people. Typically thinking stuff like: “Colin Powell is so successful why are other blacks so lazy?” While ignoring his exceptional gifts, hard work, and even luck in getting to where he is. For every Colin Powell there are 10 Jamals who never get a shot or even think of going for one because of systemic disadvantages against them.
Sorry, I do tend to go on… my thoughts run together a bit and the quote tree has gotten a bit ugly.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
I was speaking of the extra 20% and many of the new voters.
You polled these voters to find out they voted simply because of skin color?
Care to post those?
That what this comes down to, people are actually upset that MORE black people voted this time around!!! Fuck, I’m not surprised though.[/quote]
I agree many people are upset so many black people realized thier vote counts and matters, I am not one of them. Getting people to think their vote doens’t matter is simply another form of oppression.
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
Everyone says how crappy Bush was…
It doesn’t matter who would’ve been president of the US for the past 8 years, they would’ve been crapped all over.
In my opinion, it wasn’t Bush, it was the situation.[/quote]
Bush is a victom of timing BUT, he is the reason we are in Iraq. This to me is the major reason I do not like him and would love to see him stand trial.
He also did not stop deregulation. They knew 90 years ago this was a bad thing.
[quote]BillO21 wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
Everyone says how crappy Bush was…
It doesn’t matter who would’ve been president of the US for the past 8 years, they would’ve been crapped all over.
In my opinion, it wasn’t Bush, it was the situation.
Bush is a victom of timing BUT, he is the reason we are in Iraq. This to me is the major reason I do not like him and would love to see him stand trial.
He also did not stop deregulation. They knew 90 years ago this was a bad thing. [/quote]
The only real mistakes bush made was apppeasing the leftist democrats.
They deregulated and he didn’t stop them, he tried but got shot down.
And since Iraq have our shores been attacked, I believe that was the point.
Sounds horrible to me , thank clinton for cutting the military and national security budget, for all the deaths in NY on 9/11
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
Everyone says how crappy Bush was…
It doesn’t matter who would’ve been president of the US for the past 8 years, they would’ve been crapped all over.
In my opinion, it wasn’t Bush, it was the situation.
Bush is a victom of timing BUT, he is the reason we are in Iraq. This to me is the major reason I do not like him and would love to see him stand trial.
He also did not stop deregulation. They knew 90 years ago this was a bad thing.
The only real mistakes bush made was apppeasing the leftist democrats.
They deregulated and he didn’t stop them, he tried but got shot down.
And since Iraq have our shores been attacked, I believe that was the point.
Sounds horrible to me , thank clinton for cutting the military and national security budget, for all the deaths in NY on 9/11
[/quote]
What seriously, your arguments have just as much credibility.
Hey he made his mistakes but no more than any other president, he has been crapped on by circumstance and democrats and his own party turning tail. Saying he isn’t conservative enough and not sticking up for they things they asked for.
The one thing the democratic party does do better is rally behind someone even they don’t believe they are right.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
Everyone says how crappy Bush was…
It doesn’t matter who would’ve been president of the US for the past 8 years, they would’ve been crapped all over.
In my opinion, it wasn’t Bush, it was the situation.
Bush is a victom of timing BUT, he is the reason we are in Iraq. This to me is the major reason I do not like him and would love to see him stand trial.
He also did not stop deregulation. They knew 90 years ago this was a bad thing.
The only real mistakes bush made was apppeasing the leftist democrats.
[/quote]
Wow, the most closed, partisan administration in recent memory, and his “only mistakes” were appeasing “leftist democrats.” Read much?
Because Iraq was going to attack America’s shores…
Clinton was a feckless and weak president on national security, but the big defense cuts began under George H.W. Bush (with Cheney as Defense Secretary), as they should have, since the Cold War was over.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Professor X wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
The only real mistakes bush made was apppeasing the leftist democrats.
WTF?
I thought that was pretty funny too.[/quote]
For six years, the republicans had control of both houses and the presidency… if they were appeasing the left during that time, then they’re even stupider than they look (and that takes some doing).
As for those who blame the “situation” (apparently an eight year thing), Bush isn’t blamed for “the situation” he found himself in (at least, not for those he didn’t cause); but for how he mishandled most of them.
Just remember, there are always to sides to a coin and of you spend your whole life focused on one you will never know the other exists.
Bush signed some bills that he didn’t have to, which pissed of some conservatives, but what they didn’t realize is he was doing it to appease try to get some help on other bills.
You haven’t been looking at what he really did, just what certain media that have a gripe have been saying if you think he has had a closed administration.