And on pretty-much all of those issues, the Republican party is on what I would consider to be the wrong side.
Basically, the Democrats are wrong about some things and right about others, but the Republicans are pretty-much wrong about everything at this point. They're the party of ultra ideological anti-environmentalism. They're the party that refuses to even discuss tax reform or regulatory changes.
First time reading this thread and it got me thinking, was there definite point when the political scene in Washington got this bad, with regards to the republican party specifically, or was this more a toxin build up over the years thing?
Being non american, it was amusing for awhile watching the whole cat fight and blustering about, but lately I've been getting worried on a whole because America was and still is a place I want to go to and work in given the chance. Muppet makes it sound like its more Gotham City than Metropolis these days.
The United States was described as "more polarized than at any time since the Civil War" about 3 years ago. I think it's gotten worse instead of better. The Republican Party has gone beyond self-parody and into the territory of truly terrifyingly divorced from reality, which would be all right except that about half of the country still considers them legitimate and correct about... anything.
I'd say it really got bad when the Republicans took over the House in '94. The so called Republican Revolution. That's when Republicans really started their zero-sum tactics in Congress.
Actually I was rolling my eyes a bit when they were talking on NPR this morning (I think it was Fresh Air? I can't keep the shows straight) about how much of the African American vote Obama has and whether he's sensitive to African American issues. While I understand, academically, the need to frame some discussions in terms of minority, gender, class, it IS pretty frustrating that it's still necessary and we can't just talk about Americans, or humans, without all the qualifiers.
I'd say it really got bad when the Republicans took over the House in '94. The so called Republican Revolution. That's when Republicans really started their zero-sum tactics in Congress.
I wasn't politically aware enough at the time to really remember this. I think 9/11 kicked off an awful lot of opportunistic power grabbing.
Well, it's WAY easier to educate someone who is voting for your guy for a bad reason on the real reasons to vote for him instead, then it is to convince a guy voting for the other guy for the wrong reasons to vote for your guy for the right reasons:-p
Do you have the same reaction when a black person says they are voting for Obama because he is black?
You know, I really don't. Black people have been collectively, continually shit on by your country under a succession of white people for hundreds of years. God forbid they want to switch it up for a little while. By contrast, whitey loses their death grip on power by a tiny, tiny amount and there is a shitstorm because apparently if you haven't got a white guy in charge of everything it's reverse racism.
Do you have the same reaction when a black person says they are voting for Obama because he is black?
Someone asked pretty much the same question about this image in a different forum I regularly visit, and I thought that question to be utterly inane. However, I gave him what I think a decent explanation why the "Put the White into the White House" slogan is by far worse than a black person voting for a black man. Here it is reproduced:
Is that worse that black people who support Obama because he's black? If so, why?
-AJF
I would assume that the reason some black people support is one of "identification", of supporting a candidate because that candidate appears to be from the same ethnic, national or economic background. While this is a very superficial reason to support a candidate, it is at least understandable as human nature, as we often use these factors as a short-hand to identify common values and believes. Towards candidates of a different background or non-minority status it suggest possibly apathy, but definitely not ill will, or instant opposition or distrust.
The "Put the White back in the White House" slogan on the other hand is pure racism. It suggests that any and all failures in policy by the Obama administration can be traced back to Obama's ethnicity, and that they could be remedied by replacing him with a white person. It suggest that any given non-white person is either undeserving or incapable of being president, or being untrustworthy in that position, and thus inferior to any given white person.
Supporting something or someone because of ethnic identification is by far better than opposing someone or something because of racism. Even if we accept the argument that both views are bad because they put race ahead of policy during a political choice, the "Put the White back into the White House" position is one of extremism, in which nobody who isn't white qualifies for the office. It is therefore by definition "worse".
Aside from this T-shirt do you assume that the white guy who votes white also has a built-in racism against all others while the black guy voting black does not? Because while this T-shirt has a clear racist message those who state they are voting for a candidate based on race are being given a free pass as to whether or not they also have a negative racial bias in their vote.
I think NPR mentioned about 2 million new black voters in the last election. Could their sudden participation be based on their racist desire not to vote for a white guy since up until then there was no black option for president?
I think NPR mentioned about 2 million new black voters in the last election. Could their sudden participation be based on their racist desire not to vote for a white guy since up until then there was no black option for president?
Some of them? Certainly. Note that there are new black voters in every election, so it's fairly obvious that this doesn't apply to all of them. There were also some first time white voters for similarly bad reasons.
I can't follow your point with all this. Yes, these people exist! What conclusion do you draw from this that I can't see?
I convinced a friend of mine to vote for him in 2008 because he was black, but not because we needed a black President. At the time, his victory was already a forgone conclusion. Since he lives in MA, it's not like he would actually change anything -- which was why he wasn't voting. I told him that he shouldn't do it because it would make a difference, but to be able to say that he did; that he elected the first black President. THAT'S why to vote in MA.
Comments
I have deja vu here. I'm pretty sure I answered one of your other rhetorical questions similarly.
Are you trying to set up a straw man of some kind? I'm not seeing it...
Aside from this T-shirt do you assume that the white guy who votes white also has a built-in racism against all others while the black guy voting black does not? Because while this T-shirt has a clear racist message those who state they are voting for a candidate based on race are being given a free pass as to whether or not they also have a negative racial bias in their vote.
I think NPR mentioned about 2 million new black voters in the last election. Could their sudden participation be based on their racist desire not to vote for a white guy since up until then there was no black option for president?
I can't follow your point with all this. Yes, these people exist! What conclusion do you draw from this that I can't see?
//nerds gotta unite.
Wait a minute...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!