Jump to content

Voting & Taxes Should you be required to do one to do the other?


Marksmu

Recommended Posts

I shall wait for an enumerated threat caused by the poor before I respond.

Did you find it as funny as Evangelicals mobilizing for George W. Bush? Do I need to explain the parallels, or can you see them...or would it ruin your point?

I think the voting laws should be changed, too. They should start by making everyone with a DL or ID card eligible to vote, then subtract out those who are ineligible, such as felons. Since the GOP led Congress passed the RealID Act, making only US citizens eligible for DLs and IDs, it should be easy to use these databases as voting rolls. Anything else is an attempt to disenfranchise voters.

There is a difference - evangelicals have always been a large voting block that have always voted with their religious beliefs - that happens to be republican because for whatever reason republicans are anti-abortion.

The big difference here is that the Black voters voted not on a political or religious stance, but on a racial one. They had never been a large united voting block - many often did not vote at all - they came out of the wood work, were registered by Acorn using taxpayer money and voted for Obama not because of what he stood on, but because he was Black, like them, and he was promising them free everything. Lots of white people voted for him not because of his beliefs but out of white guilt - a national phenomenon.

And the college educated voter statistic is a bad statistic as well. There is a sayingit goes - "if your young and your republican you have no heart, and if your old and your a democrat you have no money".

It makes complete sense, and is a true trend. As college educated people start working, they do not make lots of money yet....they believe in a Utopian society and really do want to help everyone, they are lower middle, or middle class workers, and there is usually little change to them in regard to taxes regardless of the party in power. However, as they age, they get more and more money, and they get frustrated watching it get stolen by democrats, and they see the problem is just getting worse, and they begin to vote republican...its why the majority of republicans are older middle/upper middle class people. It has nothing to do with whether or not they went to school....its contingent on income. It takes a while to see how much money was being stolen from you in taxes - people usually don't even notice till they get a raise, and that moves them to a new tax bracket, and they see how little of that raise they got to keep.

If Americans had to cut a check to the IRS each paycheck instead of it being automatically withheld from them by the employer - there would be a tax revolution in less than 6 months - and that would happen without increasing anyones taxes. People pay no attention to the deductions on their stub - they only look at the dollar amount they get to deposit, and start wondering what to buy, or whether there will be enough to cover all their bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a difference - evangelicals have always been a large voting block that have always voted with their religious beliefs - that happens to be republican because for whatever reason republicans are anti-abortion.

The big difference here is that the Black voters voted not on a political or religious stance, but on a racial one. They had never been a large united voting block - many often did not vote at all - they came out of the wood work, were registered by Acorn using taxpayer money and voted for Obama not because of what he stood on, but because he was Black, like them, and he was promising them free everything. Lots of white people voted for him not because of his beliefs but out of white guilt - a national phenomenon.

This is so wrong that it does not need refuting. It is comical on its face, and reveals that you haven't looked up a single voting statistic before replying. I will not do your research for you.

And the college educated voter statistic is a bad statistic as well. There is a sayingit goes - "if your young and your republican you have no heart, and if your old and your a democrat you have no money".

I was a college Republican and a current Democrat (if I was registered). I have always scoffed at that saying.

If Americans had to cut a check to the IRS each paycheck instead of it being automatically withheld from them by the employer - there would be a tax revolution in less than 6 months - and that would happen without increasing anyones taxes. People pay no attention to the deductions on their stub - they only look at the dollar amount they get to deposit, and start wondering what to buy, or whether there will be enough to cover all their bills.

More proof that you have never been self-employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it's possible to be educated without getting a college degree, it's impossible to get a college degree without being educated.

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

I took an entry level Pre-cal class for athletes the summer before I started college b/c I didnt take the AP Cal 1 test after taking Cal 1 in highschool, and I didnt want to start in precal and repeat a class I already had, and thus waste a semester on something I already knew. The teach actually drew an alligator on the chalk board to explain to the people the greater than less than symbol. I laughed out loud thinking it was a joke - I looked around to a room full of blank stares that seemed to be saying holy crap - I dont get it. I made a 110 on the first test - the median grade on that exam was only a 58. It was the easiest thing I have ever taken, and the teacher allowed me to take the final exam in lieu of finishing the class - as in her words, it would cause the curve to schew and 2 or 3 athletes would not pass her class with my tests averaged in. That is a true story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

I took an entry level Pre-cal class for athletes the summer before I started college b/c I didnt take the AP Cal 1 test after taking Cal 1 in highschool, and I didnt want to start in precal and repeat a class I already had, and thus waste a semester on something I already knew. The teach actually drew an alligator on the chalk board to explain to the people the greater than less than symbol. I laughed out loud thinking it was a joke - I looked around to a room full of blank stares that seemed to be saying holy crap - I dont get it. I made a 110 on the first test - the median grade on that exam was only a 58. It was the easiest thing I have ever taken, and the teacher allowed me to take the final exam in lieu of finishing the class - as in her words, it would cause the curve to schew and 2 or 3 athletes would not pass her class with my tests averaged in. That is a true story.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennedy and LBJ had MUCH minority support.

As have almost every Dem since FDR.

"I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,"

^

That has to be the most Bizzaro World statement I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

So let's review. An army of uneducated idiots cheated their way through college, failed to pay taxes, and then voted for Barack Obama. It's all clear now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where the conversation has gone since your original post, but I don't think voting should be tied to how much taxes you pay.

I NEVER implied that you would even have to pay taxes to vote. In fact, I specifically stated that even if you didn't earn an income, you can still file a return - which you could use to vote with.

Did you find it as funny as Evangelicals mobilizing for George W. Bush? Do I need to explain the parallels, or can you see them...or would it ruin your point?

No, it perfectly illustrates my point. It however was in the last election, and unlike Obama's "grass-roots" organizations, evangelical groups didn't launch a campaign to register as many evangelicals, all on the premise that one: Bush was white like them, and two: that his election would get them closer to Heaven.

"I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,"

^

That has to be the most Bizzaro World statement I've seen.

Really, is that the best retort you have? Basically you're saying you've got nothing intelligent to reply with, so you'll just proclaim my statement crazy. Seems about right for you. All bark, no bite. At least Red gives SUBSTANCE to his replies.

While it's possible to be educated without getting a college degree, it's impossible to get a college degree without being educated.

I'm afraid almost every professional sports athlete can disprove that theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennedy and LBJ had MUCH minority support.

Yes--despite the fact that blacks were still barred from voting in many parts of the South. The Voting Rights Act was 1965--it has not been that long since we had institutionalized voter disenfranchisement in this country. Now 40 some-odd years later, look at the new ways the non-poor are promoting to keep the poor away from the polls: proving that one paid one's fair share in taxes (a catch 22 if I ever heard one) or, laughably, they want 'educated' people voting for the most 'capable' candidate? The ballot is determined by money and favoritism: the money hedging on who is 'electable.' It has ZERO to do with capability.

I think all this Obama anger is misplaced. You should be pissed at the republican party for running a slobbering old man who couldn't stay on mesage. You should be pissed at the party for not even having a mesage, while the economy was circling the drain and an unpopular war was dragging on and on.

Remember, we only elect who is put on the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it perfectly illustrates my point. It however was in the last election, and unlike Obama's "grass-roots" organizations, evangelical groups didn't launch a campaign to register as many evangelicals, all on the premise that one: Bush was white like them, and two: that his election would get them closer to Heaven.

I don't think you've read up on the Evangelical...and more importantly, the Bush/Rove...campaign strategy. Grass roots activism, with a heavy emphasis on the "He's one of us" line of thought, is exactly what the Rove campaign strategy was. If there is a contrast, it is that Obama did not campaign directly to Blacks. In fact, he rarely mentioned Blacks in his campaigns (except when forced to). He campaigned on helping the working poor and the middle class. He virtually excluded the traditional poor from his speeches. This is the opposite of your claim. Bush's approach more closely fits your claim.

The fact is that Obama took the Black vote for granted. He could afford to, because Blacks understandably were attracted to his candidacy.

As for west20th's comment, he is alluding to the fact that Blacks have voted for Democrats in numbers at or above 90% for decades. To suggest that Obama is the first Democrat to garner the Black vote is more than a little off the mark. Remember the claims that Bill Clinton was "the first Black president"? And, even claiming that Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black are false. As recently as October 2007, Hillary Clinton held a majority among Black voters. It was not until Obama won Iowa and came in a close 2nd in New Hampshire that Blacks started supporting Obama in big numbers, suggesting that Blacks had other thoughts than race on their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so wrong that it does not need refuting. It is comical on its face, and reveals that you haven't looked up a single voting statistic before replying. I will not do your research for you.

Its not wrong nor is it without research - the evangelicals have always voted their beliefs - if you have not read their manifesto, you should....its here I will make it easy for you. http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs...l_Manifesto.pdf

They historically vote republican on their beliefs - things have been changing, but evangelicals allegedly cannot support any candidate that is pro-abortion and abortion is a core belief of the democratic party. It is patently against that which they claim to stand for.

If your referring to my statement that blacks came out in force to vote for obama b/c he was black look at the statistics, they do not lie there the last statistic I saw said that over 80% of black voters voted for Obama. Wow - 80% that is not just a majority, its a super majority. You will never be able to prove what did or didnt play in those voters minds, but I can tell you right now, if you pick 10 strangers from 10 races and put them in a room, there is virtually no chance youll get 8 out of 10 to agree on anything. Race was a factor and your kidding yourself if you dont think it was.

I was a college Republican and a current Democrat (if I was registered). I have always scoffed at that saying.

Glad you scoffed- I find it true. I didnt care much in college, and as I started getting paychecks, I started caring more and more.

More proof that you have never been self-employed.

You are correct - I have never been self employed...I do however have to make estimated payments based on my investment property incomes - and I hate those too....However, the majority of Americans are not self employed, which makes your point that I have never been self employed mute. I would even venture to guess that the SUPERMAJORITY of Americans have not been self employed, and that if those who have not been self employed were to have to write checks for the amount of taxes coming out of their check automatically - there would be a revolution. People dont seem to notice how much of the money they make they dont get to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, is that the best retort you have? Basically you're saying you've got nothing intelligent to reply with, so you'll just proclaim my statement crazy. Seems about right for you. All bark, no bite. At least Red gives SUBSTANCE to his replies.

"Bizzaro World" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World ) means that your statement is the exact opposite of what is true, in other words backwards. It does not imply your statement is crazy, just flat out wrong. "All bark, no bite"? Funny coming from someone who anonymously threatens to slap people while hiding behind the Internet.

Edited by west20th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct - I have never been self employed...I do however have to make estimated payments based on my investment property incomes - and I hate those too....However, the majority of Americans are not self employed, which makes your point that I have never been self employed mute. I would even venture to guess that the SUPERMAJORITY of Americans have not been self employed, and that if those who have not been self employed were to have to write checks for the amount of taxes coming out of their check automatically - there would be a revolution. People dont seem to notice how much of the money they make they dont get to keep.

Those of us who ARE self-employed have never revolted. Why would the others? People own homes. They have to cut a check for property and school taxes. Why haven't they revolted? Could it be that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Most Americans recognize that taxes are necessary for a government to function. They may not LIKE paying taxes, but they understand the need for them. Just because you have an irrational hatred of government, doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Some of us would rather fix what is wrong with government, rather than get rid of it. We also take the Constitution seriously. We really do believe that all men (and women) are created equal. We do not believe that those who receive a bigger paycheck, or have more acreage, or more head of cattle, are more equal than others, that they get more votes...and we will fight any who seek to change these inalienable rights of a US citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of us who ARE self-employed have never revolted. Why would the others? People own homes. They have to cut a check for property and school taxes. Why haven't they revolted? Could it be that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Most Americans recognize that taxes are necessary for a government to function. They may not LIKE paying taxes, but they understand the need for them. Just because you have an irrational hatred of government, doesn't mean the rest of the country does. Some of us would rather fix what is wrong with government, rather than get rid of it. We also take the Constitution seriously. We really do believe that all men (and women) are created equal. We do not believe that those who receive a bigger paycheck, or have more acreage, or more head of cattle, are more equal than others, that they get more votes...and we will fight any who seek to change these inalienable rights of a US citizen.

I fully believe that all men are created equally - I just dont believe that because I have more I need to give it to someone else so that we are equal. I'd love to fix what is wrong with this country I could make a list and it would be long. Up at the top for me is taxes - I fully understand and appreciate the need for taxes, but the mentality has gotten in this country to just take from those who have more to fulfill the wish list of those in the government. And it is exactly that its a wish list. Look at the new bills, the budget, everything is sooo bad. There is money in the stimulus or budget, or somewhere I read to put new sod down in DC - new freaking SOD. Im sure that is REALLY important to someone...I just dont know who that one person is.

We wouldnt have to raise taxes all the time, if we would stop expanding government, creating new essential programs, that magically became essential over night that we never needed before. Then we have to add new employees to oversee that program, then an agency to oversee the employees who oversee the program...it just keeps spiraling out of hand. we need to draw a line. The economy is shrinking, that means less money for everyone - even the government. They need to find a place to cut the fat from, not just raise taxes on those who are still doing well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get your argument about raising taxes all the time. When you were born, the first tax bracket started at 14% of income, and the highest was 70%. Now, they are 10% and 35%. If they had been going up, I'd see your point, but they are half what they were historically, so your argument just sounds like selfishness and greediness, and a refusal to pay for the services you receive. And, I pay under the same code as you do, so it's not like you are paying more than I am.

It just infuriates me to listen to the people who demand the biggest army and the newest roads and the most police protection also demand the lowest taxes. Talk about an entitlement mentality. And, all that stimulus crap? It is going to wealthy bankers, wealthy corporate executives and to stimulate BUSINESSES. Little of it is making it to the poor. I understand the rationale being used, but here again, why SHOULDN'T the wealthy pay for the economic stimulus of THEIR businesses? Your flaw is that you have a generic hatred of taxes without any specific knowledge of who gets the biggest benefit of the government spending. I'd wager a big chunk of your paycheck comes from government spending. Aren't you an engineer? What kind? Does your company do any government work?

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for west20th's comment, he is alluding to the fact that Blacks have voted for Democrats in numbers at or above 90% for decades. To suggest that Obama is the first Democrat to garner the Black vote is more than a little off the mark. Remember the claims that Bill Clinton was "the first Black president"? And, even claiming that Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black are false. As recently as October 2007, Hillary Clinton held a majority among Black voters. It was not until Obama won Iowa and came in a close 2nd in New Hampshire that Blacks started supporting Obama in big numbers, suggesting that Blacks had other thoughts than race on their minds.

I apologize, I should have clarified. This entire time I've been referring to the number of NEW, first-time (in spite of being able to vote in previous elections) minority voters that organizations that supported Obama brought to the polls.

My question is why didn't these organizations mobilize in the last two campaigns for the previous Democratic nominees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize, I should have clarified. This entire time I've been referring to the number of NEW, first-time (in spite of being able to vote in previous elections) minority voters that organizations that supported Obama brought to the polls.

My question is why didn't these organizations mobilize in the last two campaigns for the previous Democratic nominees?

I seem to recall Paul Bettencourt poo-pooing the supposed flood of new voters, stating that they were virtually all no-shows. When I get some time this evening, I'll see if I can find some stats on that. In the meantime, suffice that voting is a very personal decision. Each person has their own reasons for being motivated to vote, or not motivated to vote. It is not unique to Blacks, or unique to this election. Recall all of the stories about Republicans unimpressed with McCain who were likely to sit it out.

EDIT: I even recall Joe Scarborough throwing somewhat of a temper-tantrum after the election about this. He was upset that the media was glowing about the grass roots support for Obama, and how many Blacks voted. He demanded to know why the media did not give Evangelicals the same glowing reviews for Bush in 2000 and 2004. He claimed that they were just as enchanted and energized for Bush as Blacks were for Obama. So, it would appear that at least one conservative and admitted evangelical agrees with me.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They historically vote republican on their beliefs - things have been changing, but evangelicals allegedly cannot support any candidate that is pro-abortion and abortion is a core belief of the democratic party. It is patently against that which they claim to stand for.

I'm gonna stop you right there on your terminology.

I'm not one to wake up in the morning hoping to see that many unborn babies have been aborted and are nothing more than medical waste. There is a huge difference between saying someone is Pro Abortion and Pro Choice. I don't think anyone gets off on aborted fetuses, and they would be sick to do so. I just believe in a Woman's right to chose early on in the pregnancy, before that clump of splitting cells becomes a human being with a heart beat. To me, once a heart is beating, its a life and abortion at this stage would be literally murder. I don't believe abortion should be used as anything but a necessity to prevent lives from being ruined by a mistake, or when health risks to come into play (that and rape and incest, which I think even Pro-Lifers can agree on). Those who use it as birth control, over proper contraception combined with birth control pills/patches or abstinence, are committing a moral sin, and they can very well pay with the mother's life if the procedure goes wrong.

Don't mean to steer off topic on the issue, but I wanna make sure those on the opposing side of what I believe understand that there is a difference and the term Pro-Choice is the correct term to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot's of murdering going on in that case. The fetal heart begins to beat between 4 and 6 weeks. Most women don't even know their pregnant by that point. So basically you are anti-abortion.

FYI In almost all states it's legal up to 24 weeks.

Edited by Mark F. Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They historically vote republican on their beliefs - things have been changing, but evangelicals allegedly cannot support any candidate that is pro-abortion and abortion is a core belief of the democratic party. It is patently against that which they claim to stand for.
I'm gonna stop you right there on your terminology.

I'm not one to wake up in the morning hoping to see that many unborn babies have been aborted and are nothing more than medical waste. There is a huge difference between saying someone is Pro Abortion and Pro Choice. I don't think anyone gets off on aborted fetuses, and they would be sick to do so. I just believe in a Woman's right to chose early on in the pregnancy, before that clump of splitting cells becomes a human being with a heart beat. To me, once a heart is beating, its a life and abortion at this stage would be literally murder. I don't believe abortion should be used as anything but a necessity to prevent lives from being ruined by a mistake, or when health risks to come into play (that and rape and incest, which I think even Pro-Lifers can agree on). Those who use it as birth control, over proper contraception combined with birth control pills/patches or abstinence, are committing a moral sin, and they can very well pay with the mother's life if the procedure goes wrong.

Don't mean to steer off topic on the issue, but I wanna make sure those on the opposing side of what I believe understand that there is a difference and the term Pro-Choice is the correct term to use.

Thanks Geoff, for pointing out that inflammatory statement. I (and probably others, too) do not know anyone, pro-choice or not, that is pro-abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I even recall Joe Scarborough throwing somewhat of a temper-tantrum after the election about this. He was upset that the media was glowing about the grass roots support for Obama, and how many Blacks voted. He demanded to know why the media did not give Evangelicals the same glowing reviews for Bush in 2000 and 2004. He claimed that they were just as enchanted and energized for Bush as Blacks were for Obama. So, it would appear that at least one conservative and admitted evangelical agrees with me.

I guess my beef is with anyone who says Obama was elected on his merit, and not the color of his skin. I know that I'm not going to change anyone's mind, I would just like for those to disagree to argue their point to help disprove mine.

I really want to belief that everyone - hell, even just the majority of those who voted for him - voted for Obama for his merits, and not the color of his skin, but the attitudes of those who openly brag about voting for him seem to know nothing about him, much less where he actually stands on any issue beyond the generic "helping the poor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot's of murdering going on in that case. The fetal heart begins to beat between 4 and 6 weeks. Most women don't even know their pregnant by that point. So basically you are anti-abortion.

FYI In almost all states it's legal up to 24 weeks.

In a lot of cases yes... but I still classify myself as Pro Choice because I do no oppose abortion in all its forms. There is a window for doing it out of necessity that I'm in full support of if the Woman / Couple / Family, etc chose to. I am for the right to terminate early on... I gave this issue much thought, and this is the only way its really Fair in my mind. After the fetus has a strong detectable heartbeat, then its a human life, you just can't deny it.

It all goes back to people's own lack of responsibility. Unfortunately in so many cases it falls on the woman to take sole responsibility to deal with the situation. For those that do, if they know they had unprotected sex, and are not on Birth Control then they should take a pregnancy test to find out early on. Pretty common sense to do this right. That and go get a morning after pill. Pregnancy can be found out well within 6 weeks of doing the deed. I'm just strongly against those who use it as primary birth control. I've known people who have had more than one abortion, and use it quite literally as a birth control method, which to me is sad... especially when they didn't learn their lesson the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses, but suddenly, a minority candidate emerges and everyone mobilizes. From minority aimed community action groups to liberal voters with the chance to wash away the white guilt of their anscestors clean, Obama made people jump for one reason - he was Black. The majority wanted a Black president, and their actions leading up to the election along with the results prove it.

The only other reason could be that he's such a proven leader that he was the obvious choice as the Democratic candidate - which is why minorities voted for him - for his proven leadership, and not the color of his skin. Based on everything I've read, watched, and experienced, that is NOT the case.

Can you honestly prove to me that minorities would have mobilized for a white man, or even a white woman? If so, then why didn't they do it last election, or the election before? Were those Democrats such lame ducks that they couldn't get minorities to the polls?

Yes, all three which have gone to Democrat canidates the last FIVE elections! Talk about a prediction! I'm too lazy to look up the 23 other states, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the results. What I would be surprised to find is if more than eight million new Hispanic and Black voters voted in this election. That would validate the 8 million vote margin Obama won by.

First off, before you go off on a wild rant, you should check your facts. The Democrats haven't won in New Hampshire over the last five elections. The Mississippi of New England voted for Bush in 2000. Maine also has two REPUBLICAN senators and has had them for multiple election cycles. New Hampshire's Republican senator just lost his re-election bid in 2008. I'll give you Vermont. Even given Vermont, your claim is an epic FAIL.

Additionally, if you want to see a white candidate who rose with the help of minority support, you only have to go all the way back to President Clinton on the national stage.

The fact of the matter is that this year's election was about WAY more than minority identification with a minority candidate. The fact that you fail to realize that is more of an indication on your racial bias than anything else.

As for me, I didn't vote for Obama because of white guilt. I voted for him because of his stance on the Iraq war and I am elated to hear about the planned pullout of U.S. troops. I voted for him because of my belief in science and research and I am elated to hear about the reversal of the stem cell ban. I voted for him because I believe in a woman's right to choose and I am elated about his reversal of Bush's policy which banned funds from internation health organizations that provide abortion as part of their overall health plans. I voted for him because I believe the economic policies of the last 8 years were destructive and dangerous (spending without limits and massively increasing the deficit). I also voted for him because he didn't have a Palin on his ticket. Sorry, but if we're going to have a litmus test for voters, then shouldn't we have one for Pols too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my beef is with anyone who says Obama was elected on his merit, and not the color of his skin.

Do you have a similar beef with anyone who says the first 43 presidents were elected on their merit and not the color of their skin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, before you go off on a wild rant, you should check your facts. The Democrats haven't won in New Hampshire over the last five elections. The Mississippi of New England voted for Bush in 2000. Maine also has two REPUBLICAN senators and has had them for multiple election cycles. New Hampshire's Republican senator just lost his re-election bid in 2008. I'll give you Vermont. Even given Vermont, your claim is an epic FAIL.

Wow... Okay,

Democratic Presidential Canidate wins Maine, New Hampshire, & Vermont:

2008: YES

2004: YES

2000: 2 of 3 (Bush took New Hampshire)

1996: YES

1992: YES

1988: NO - Bush/Quayle win all three.

Now, that's an EPIC FAIL. I would reply to the rest of your post, but your inability to obtain common knowledge pretty much invalidates anything else you might have to say.

Do you have a similar beef with anyone who says the first 43 presidents were elected on their merit and not the color of their skin?

Had there been non-white candidates and 43 times the white guy was chosen, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify...

You said "all three (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) have gone to Democrat candidates the last five elections."

That isn't true. Like you pointed out, New Hampshire voted for Bush in 2000. Which would mean the Democrats didn't win in New Hampshire the last five times. That was your claim, not mine. I just pointed out that it wasn't true.

Additionally, since you didn't limit your claim to just Presidential candidates, I also pointed out that Maine has two Republican Senators. Snowe has been in office since 1995. Collins has been in office since 1997. In New Hampshire, one Senate seat is still in Republican hands and has been since 1993. The other seat went for the Democrat in 2008 for the FIRST TIME since 1979!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had there been non-white candidates and 43 times the white guy was chosen, sure.

So you're saying it was merit and not skin color that determined every single candidate before 2008 (except maybe 1988, when Jesse Jackson ran)?

And then, suddenly, the 44th president was elected on skin color and not merit?

Wow.

Edited by memebag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People didn't vote for skin color, they voted for CHANGE! Which to me is basically like an anti-vote...not for something but against something else. And I'm fine with that. It's like the volleyball with "synthetic leather" printed on it. Ok, now we know it's not leather, but still have no idea what the hell it is. But hey, if you know you hate leather, go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying it was merit and not skin color that determined every single candidate before 2008 (except maybe 1988, when Jesse Jackson ran)?

And then, suddenly, the 44th president was elected on skin color and not merit?

Wow.

I didn't say it before, but since you're baiting me now, then sure, I think the votes that were needed to secure Obama's win were cast based on skin color.

Are you saying that you think that all 69 million people went down to the polls with metaphorical blindfolds on and voted strictly for "change" based on the merits of the Democratic candidate?

Now let me take a guess: this somehow makes me a racist? Or perhaps a bigot? Maybe I'm just crazy with all my right-wing propaganda? It must be one of those three though, right?

Edited by Jeebus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it before, but since you're baiting me now, then sure, I think the votes that were needed to secure Obama's win were cast based on skin color.

Are you saying that you think that all 69 million people went down to the polls with metaphorical blindfolds on and voted strictly for "change" based on the merits of the Democratic candidate?

Now let me take a guess: this somehow makes me a racist? Or perhaps a bigot? Maybe I'm just crazy with all my right-wing propaganda? It must be one of those three though, right?

Umm...I'll take #3, ALEX, for $1000

What is... Crazy with all your right wing propaganda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it before, but since you're baiting me now, then sure, I think the votes that were needed to secure Obama's win were cast based on skin color.

You said you had a "beef" with anyone who said Obama was elected on merit and not skin color, didn't you?

Are you saying that you think that all 69 million people went down to the polls with metaphorical blindfolds on and voted strictly for "change" based on the merits of the Democratic candidate?

Nope. I think every president has been elected, at least in part, based on skin color. George Washington would not have become president if he was black. Neither would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. Race is a huge issue in the USA, as this thread demonstrates. We are not color blind and the playing field is not level.

Now let me take a guess: this somehow makes me a racist? Or perhaps a bigot? Maybe I'm just crazy with all my right-wing propaganda? It must be one of those three though, right?

I'm just pointing out that when the president isn't white, you seem to see skin color playing a bigger role than than when he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you think that all 69 million people went down to the polls with metaphorical blindfolds on and voted strictly for "change" based on the merits of the Democratic candidate?

I think you are right, to an extent.

Nope. I think every president has been elected, at least in part, based on skin color. George Washington would not have become president if he was black. Neither would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. Race is a huge issue in the USA, as this thread demonstrates. We are not color blind and the playing field is not level.

I also agree with this. But in every other election it has been white/male vs white/male, so your comparison isn't quite perfect. I don't think a non-white candidate would have won any other election, until this one. I think race played a factor, but also "change" - I still say as many people were voting against one party as there were people voting for the other. But this is how politics works, a vote is as much for your selection as it is against another, whatever your true motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with this. But in every other election it has been white/male vs white/male, so your comparison isn't quite perfect.

It isn't if you don't consider race as much a factor in the nomination as it is in the election. Then it isn't white male vs white male, it's white male vs everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, before you go off on a wild rant, you should check your facts. The Democrats haven't won in New Hampshire over the last five elections. The Mississippi of New England voted for Bush in 2000. Maine also has two REPUBLICAN senators and has had them for multiple election cycles. New Hampshire's Republican senator just lost his re-election bid in 2008. I'll give you Vermont. Even given Vermont, your claim is an epic FAIL.

Additionally, if you want to see a white candidate who rose with the help of minority support, you only have to go all the way back to President Clinton on the national stage.

The fact of the matter is that this year's election was about WAY more than minority identification with a minority candidate. The fact that you fail to realize that is more of an indication on your racial bias than anything else.

As for me, I didn't vote for Obama because of white guilt. I voted for him because of his stance on the Iraq war and I am elated to hear about the planned pullout of U.S. troops. I voted for him because of my belief in science and research and I am elated to hear about the reversal of the stem cell ban. I voted for him because I believe in a woman's right to choose and I am elated about his reversal of Bush's policy which banned funds from internation health organizations that provide abortion as part of their overall health plans. I voted for him because I believe the economic policies of the last 8 years were destructive and dangerous (spending without limits and massively increasing the deficit). I also voted for him because he didn't have a Palin on his ticket. Sorry, but if we're going to have a litmus test for voters, then shouldn't we have one for Pols too?

But Obama is not going to pull out - he is going to stay for at least a year, and even then he is moving the troops to Afghanistan, not bringing them home. Im sure your elated to have heard that.

In terms of science and research - there has NEVER been a BAN on stem cell research. EVER - there has been a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Indeed this entire time stem cell research has been ongoing without funding from the federal government. Furthermore the ban was only on fetus stem cells - the umbilical cords were fair game, as were any individual person who was willing to allow extraction of bone marrow, or any other place they can obtain stem cells. Stem Cell research in fetuses was stopped by republicans b/c they want a stop to all abortion. However - as a republican who is pro-choice - I dont disagree with you on this one. The point is that it was a ban on FEDERAL FUNDING ONLY. Not a ban on the research. Private industry would have been chugging and going if there were alot of positive research coming from this arena.

I am actually a pro-choice republican. I believe in a womans right to choose in limited circumstances. A blanket ban on anything with few exceptions is always a bad thing.

I am against funding almost everything outside our territorial borders - we have enough problems at home, our tax dollars need to stay at home until our problems are fixed.

I think government needs to stay out of the business of business. Tax breaks for some industries and not others are created by lobbyists and are to the advantage of only the largest corporations who can afford to lobby. it does not leave a level playing field for all, and its out of hand.

I also think Obama is a gifted speaker, and also a complete idiot. He has no idea what he is doing, he is way over his head, he has no experience, and he simply promised change, b/c the print media and television hated bush so much they convinced us he was evil. The sheep followed the hype of the media and signed right up. It was pathetic. Some people made educated decisions to support him - the majority did not.

And if you were disqusted by Bush era spending, you have got to be vomiting uncontrollably now. In 3 months Obama has spent more than bush did in 8 years! More pork in his budget, and absolutley no oversight in his stimulus. His goal, in my personal conspiracy theory belief - is to intentionally bankrupt a few sectors 1) banking 2) energy 3) health care 4) defense - nationalize everything have to do with both - and make the public so dependent on the government that he effectively transforms us into a socialist country all without the sheep noticing. He is well on his way - and this stimulus bill helps him achieve it. He will keep grabbing for power through his gerrymandering of the census and redrawing of the districts until he has taken everything and you can no longer get it anymore without the government. Then he has won. He leaves a few private industries and still claims he has done nothing but was necessary to remove us from this economic crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't if you don't consider race as much a factor in the nomination as it is in the election. Then it isn't white male vs white male, it's white male vs everyone else.

Eh, kind of. In general, the masses don't get involved even in presidential elections until it is down to the final 2. I would say there is at least 10 times more involvement that with the primaries. The point was that a large minority group mobilized for this election due to the fact that one of theirs finally cracked the final 2. They didn't do it to nearly the full extent until after he won the primary. It wasn't about him against everyone else at that point, it was him against that one other guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, kind of. In general, the masses don't get involved even in presidential elections until it is down to the final 2. I would say there is at least 10 times more involvement that with the primaries. The point was that a large minority group mobilized for this election due to the fact that one of theirs finally cracked the final 2. They didn't do it to nearly the full extent until after he won the primary. It wasn't about him against everyone else at that point, it was him against that one other guy.

I don't understand what "the masses" have to do with this. Obama's skin color was as much a factor as Herbert Hoover's or Jimmy Carter's, no matter if we're talking about pre-primary campaigning, primaries or the general election. Large majority groups mobilized for other elections who wouldn't have if "one of theirs" wasn't on the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why aren't any minorities flocking to the GOP now that Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee? Steele is an African American, and he has even pushed for a "hip hop" makeover to attract young African American and Hispanic voters. By the of the logic of some in this thread, that should do the trick.

And yet, minorities are not flocking to the GOP. Not even trickling. My guess is that it's because Michael Steele comes across as an out-of-touch phony trying to use cheap tactics for a desperate GOP that hasn't changed it's fundamental values or beliefs. And that is why a majority of minorities voted for Obama rather than McCain.

I wouldn't deny that some people do vote largely out of race. It goes both ways; there are several interviews from before the election capturing racist whites in areas like West Virginia, some of them literally saying they won't vote for Obama because he's black.

But I would give more credit to the most voters in this country. Even though a candidate's race is going to be a factor for many people, it's absurd to insinuate that it's the determining factor. It's an insult to the intelligence of millions of voters who can in fact decipher the difference between two candidates positions and the affect their positions and values may have on their livelihoods.

I'd like to see this happen - a majority of minorities vote for a conservative black Republican candidate instead of a liberal white Democrat candidate. Then, I think you might have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget it Jeebus. If your not politically correct then your automatically deemed a racist by liberals. And you will NEVER get a liberal to admit that some people voted for Obama just because of his skin color. :P

Hell, I'll admit it. Some blacks and minorities voted for Obama because he was black, and they wanted someone of the same color, or at least a non-white to win. Common sense there, with no delusions that Obama received some of his votes simply based on his skin color. But same goes for McCain, many whites voted for him because he was white and that he was not black, and on many levels racial and political that he was not Barack Obama.

I personally voted for Obama NOT because he was black, or out of "white guilt" but on the bulk of the issues. Did I agree with Obama 100% of the time and agree with McCain 0% of the time? Absolutely not. I went by whom I believed based on my education, experience, and beliefs whom I thought would be best at making things better overall. It was really one of those lesser of two evil type situations.

Remember though, Barack Obama is half black, and half white. He's not full blooded African-American. This is significant because technically we still have not had a fully black president. As we move on year after year and more and more people are multiple races, I don't think it will matter anymore anyhow eventually.

Expanding on what Memebag was saying, I disagree with his assertion to an extent, or perhaps just the way he worded it. I don't think race was a factor in past elections because it was white candidate vs white candidate. Now the fact they even got in the primaries and were nominated WAS because they were white. No African American would have realistically ran before the 1980s when Jesse Jackson did it, but did not get his party's nomination (that is if you don't count Shirley Chisholm, who made the first ever bid for an African American to run for President back in 1972, however in that time, passing the milestone of announcing a bid was about as far as she'd get).

Therefore prior to Election 08', race was not a factor in the Election itself. It was however a factor that they received their party's nomination, and that they were able to announce their bid for the Presidency to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why aren't any minorities flocking to the GOP now that Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee? Steele is an African American, and he has even pushed for a "hip hop" makeover to attract young African American and Hispanic voters. By the of the logic of some in this thread, that should do the trick.

And yet, minorities are not flocking to the GOP. Not even trickling. My guess is that it's because Michael Steele comes across as an out-of-touch phony trying to use cheap tactics for a desperate GOP that hasn't changed it's fundamental values or beliefs. And that is why a majority of minorities voted for Obama rather than McCain.

I

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

Edited by crunchtastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

I can see that :rolleyes:.

I think this speaks to the petty shallowness and lack of leadership of the current GOP. To expect that trotting out a few token minorities will swing public opinion in their favor is really pathetic, and kind of insulting at the same time. GOP, try changing your message and positions and show some actual leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I'll admit it. Some blacks and minorities voted for Obama because he was black, and they wanted someone of the same color, or at least a non-white to win. Common sense there, with no delusions that Obama received some of his votes simply based on his skin color. But same goes for McCain, many whites voted for him because he was white and that he was not black, and on many levels racial and political that he was not Barack Obama.

I won't deny that there were a lot of redneck whites that voted against Obama because of his color and I have nothing but contempt for those people. I just believe racism works both ways and those that voted for him because he's black are no different from those same white rednecks and I have nothing but contempt for those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on what Memebag was saying, I disagree with his assertion to an extent, or perhaps just the way he worded it. I don't think race was a factor in past elections because it was white candidate vs white candidate. Now the fact they even got in the primaries and were nominated WAS because they were white. No African American would have realistically ran before the 1980s when Jesse Jackson did it, but did not get his party's nomination (that is if you don't count Shirley Chisholm, who made the first ever bid for an African American to run for President back in 1972, however in that time, passing the milestone of announcing a bid was about as far as she'd get).

Therefore prior to Election 08', race was not a factor in the Election itself. It was however a factor that they received their party's nomination, and that they were able to announce their bid for the Presidency to begin with.

It should be noted that while other Blacks have run for president, their downfall can be traced as much to political strategy as to skin color. Previous Black candidates ran on a platform of inequality to Blacks, making them largely attractive candidates only to Blacks. They may have expanded the message to the extremely poor, but that still left them out of touch with large majorities of voters. Obama, in stark contrast, rarely talked of the "plight" of Blacks or the poor, instead talking of the plight of the working middle class, a shrinking but still large voting block. When the market suddenly tanked, his approach fit the crisis well, while McCain was seemingly caught flat-footed. In the end, race was as far from most voters minds as it could be, as it should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that while other Blacks have run for president, their downfall can be traced as much to political strategy as to skin color. Previous Black candidates ran on a platform of inequality to Blacks, making them largely attractive candidates only to Blacks. They may have expanded the message to the extremely poor, but that still left them out of touch with large majorities of voters. Obama, in stark contrast, rarely talked of the "plight" of Blacks or the poor, instead talking of the plight of the working middle class, a shrinking but still large voting block. When the market suddenly tanked, his approach fit the crisis well, while McCain was seemingly caught flat-footed. In the end, race was as far from most voters minds as it could be, as it should have been.

I can agree with that statement.

Obama has differed from a lot of black candidates. You don't think of a black leader running with a message of black pride and everything else you can think of along those lines. For some reason it reminds me of when Jesse Jackson was caught by the camera saying how Barack Obama was talking down to black people and how he wanted to cut his nuts off :lol: .

Actually if people would stop mentioning it so much, I would probably completely forget he's black, cause during his campaign all I heard was the issues, the chant of change, and finally after months of waiting to finally hear what exactly that change was besides a campaign slogan.

Voting for him because he was black is in fact racist... voting against him simply because he was black is also of course, very racist in a very negative way. I remember hearing an interview with a white southern man who said: (paraphrased) "The only black men I know of talking about change were holding a cup". Contempt for those kind of people who would make a statement like that, indeed! :angry2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steele thing rather reminds me of Nancy Reagan trying to appeal to disaffected youth with the 'just say no' campaign.

Heh, they're going to try with Bobby 'I'm Refusing Stimulus Money for My Broke-Ass State' Jindal. I can just hear some republican party consultant at the table: Look, Jindal's not black, but he's not white, so he's as good as black. And besides, look how popular Slumdog Millionaire is! Wait, is Jindal Indian or Pakistani? Nevermind. Anyway, there are a lot of black people in Louisiana!

Are you anti-Jindal or just lumping him in with the rest of the GOP? Jindal lost the first time he ran for governor, and you can probably chalk that up to race. Instead they went for a woman, possibly the dumbest person ever to hold public office. On the second time around they didn't make the same mistake, Jindal won easily. He's a very smart guy, but he's shown to still be very green in a lot of political plays. I think he really does try to do what's best for the state, or did at the beginning. I'm afraid he may be falling in to the GOP good ol' boy crowd more and more though, which can only hurt in the end.

And what Geoff8201 was saying is along the lines of what I was trying to convey before, apparently poorly. I think race was more of a factor in this election than any to date simply because it was actually on the ballot instead of just on candidates' platforms or policies. Regardless, anyone who voted based on race is an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think race was more of a factor in this election than any to date simply because it was actually on the ballot instead of just on candidates' platforms or policies.

But skin color (race) has always been on the ballot. White is not the default color for a person, candidate or president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But skin color (race) has always been on the ballot. White is not the default color for a person, candidate or president.

Right but the difference is a choice between white and white, or white and other. As soon as other landed on the ballot, about 8 million more "other" votes came out of the woodworks than usual. I believe that was Jeebus' original point, which I may have gotten away from between then and now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you anti-Jindal or just lumping him in with the rest of the GOP? Jindal lost the first time he ran for governor, and you can probably chalk that up to race. Instead they went for a woman, possibly the dumbest person ever to hold public office. On the second time around they didn't make the same mistake, Jindal won easily. He's a very smart guy, but he's shown to still be very green in a lot of political plays. I think he really does try to do what's best for the state, or did at the beginning. I'm afraid he may be falling in to the GOP good ol' boy crowd more and more though, which can only hurt in the end.

I'm not anti-Jindal, but yes, he's getting played by the GOP. They could potentially ruin an otherwise good, but, green, gov, if they pick him to groom for the national stage (and talk him into doing dumb things like refusing stimulus money). Jeez even Rick Perry backed off that in about a day! I understand that people don't want more give aways for the permanent underclass in New Orleans, but the folks in the rest of the state who lose their chemical plant, and oil and gas jobs are probably going to want the extra unemployment checks. I agree, Jindal should focus on the state, and not get overly swayed by party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...