Yes there are people who simply wont vote for a person because he is black and there are those who will vote for a person simply because he is. It is sad that there will be an element of Racism in the 08 elections. What is even sadder is that there are those who will use the Obama loss to further drive a rift in race relations by insinuating that Obamas loss was based wholly in racist thought and not in the fact that there is a clear and distinct choice in ideology this election cycle (not that there were not in previous elections just that it is more apparent in this one) wherein the people will choose to embrace the Conservative notion and reject the Liberal one.
This charge of Racism will be furthered by the Media and I can only assume that Jesse "I wanna cut Obama's nuts off" Jackson will spearhead the charge. In addition it will be likely that the European media will be happy to follow suit in a further attempt to demonize conservative American values.
So I ask; who is more racist; the person whose vote is based on race, or those who will use the Obama loss as a lever to instigate ill will between peoples?
12 comments:
More than 90% of black voters favor Obama. Do they know what he stands for? No. Do they care? No.
Every aspect of Obama and his campaign is viewed through the lens of race. That's the case if you listen to Obama's supporters. They damn him in a faint way by suggesting their obsession with race is equal to the race-mindedness of the entire voting public.
But that's how things work when race is involved. Blacks continue to link every group deficiency to slavery. If it is not possible to assert that slavery is the handy cause of low black academic achievement, the blame is then shifted to racism. But the racism is presented as a modern-day strain of slavery.
After such extensive self-victimization among blacks, is it any surprise that Democrats of all races depict Sarah Palin as sub-human? As a non-female?
How about some reality?
Obama's visions for his dreamy administration are essentially Marxist and would require enormous centralized power on top of enormous tax increases.
He's losing ground among people who are beginning to see him as a dream merchant who only knows how to go to the nearest government office and ask for aid.
Well, I think you are missing the point here with this exploration, but in answer to your query, the one who doesn't vote for Obama simply because he is black is a racist. The one who would use Obama's loss as an justification to start unrest or to advance their own political goals is a cynical opportunist.
The point you are missing is that once again, in this race, it is the economy..... stupid.
(by the way, what percentage of blacks backed Clinton in '92?)
PT
Are the people who are voting for Obama simply because he IS black racist also?
To a certain extent, yes they are. But clearly there are different levels. There are those who will vote for a black man because he hates whites: racist.
But there are others who are so excited that a black man is actually on the ballot, they will vote for him: less racist.
Still others are life-long Democrats who would vote for whoever the Dems put on the ballot: the majority.
Take a look at the difference between (Bill) Clinton's percentage of the black vote and Obama's in the upcoming election. Then divide that difference between the top two groups. How many people is that?
In a recent poll suggests that "9% of all voters are somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable with having a black president." and that doesn't include those who are lying. Blacks make up 12% of the population. So there are almost as as many admitted racists as there are blacks in the U.S.
In Kentucky, during the primaries, a full one in five declared that race was a factor in their voting. (Who won THAT primary?)
And throughout the primaries, Hilary Clinton led Obama with amongst blacks.
So although blacks support Obama against McCain, I would suggest it has more to do with Obama being a Democrat than Obama being black.
Oh, sorry, links....
Clinton leading Obama: here
Cited poll: here
PT
"less racist"???
Hahahahaha
pt,
The percentage of black voters who voted for Clinton is not the relevant figure.
The relevant figure is the NUMBER of blacks who voted for Clinton.
I am sure 90% of black voters voted for Clinton. I am also sure that MORE than 90% of black voters will vote for Obama.
However, I think the NUMBER of black voters who have registered and will vote has increased BECAUSE there is a black candidate on the ticket.
That's life. Identity politics is real.
Black voters will vote for him because they identify with him more closely than any other presidential candidate in history.
That observation explains the success of white protestants since the founding of the Republic. Kennedy is the only Catholic to become president.
Anyway, as this week progresses and Obama jabbers about the mortgage problems, it's clearer than ever that he is a believer in government control of almost everything.
The guy is a communist in his heart of hearts -- and he has no sense of the depth of his ignorance on financial matters.
McCain, on the other hand, knows the limits of his grasp of the economy. Better to elect the candidate who knows his limits than to elect a demagogue.
Yes, less racist. Everyone is racist, it is just a matter of degrees. But of course in your bi-polar world people are either racist or not. This simply isn't the case, like it or not.
NS,
Good points made. The funny thing is that the Bush administration with the help of the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress are about to give the government more control over the private sector than has ever been granted before.
Don't you find that just a touch ironic?
praguetwin,
The current mortgage mess has its roots in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks and other lenders to give money to unqualified borrowers.
Thus, it was, in fact, REGULATION that led to today's troubles.
Standard lending criteria include two factors -- adequate income to service the debt AND a hefty downpayment, usually 20%, to ensure the buyer has his heart and wallet in the game.
But that was deemed racist by the people who had inadequate incomes and no downpayments.
Guess what? Those people were most often black and hispanic.
Legislators intruded in private industry with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which lowered lending standards. The CRA was followed by other legislative efforts that continued the trend.
Wall Street responded by creating loans that conformed to government regulations. Those loans were given to borrowers who lacked sufficient income and downpayment money.
The combination of mortgage insurance and credit default swaps -- which are themselves a form of insurance -- were developed to protect lenders from borrowers who fail to honor their obigations.
But it wasn't enough.
Now the government will temporarily acquire billions of dollars of troubled assets. After settling on a price to pay for the assets, the government will turn around and begin the process of jump-starting the market for those assets and it will re-sell them.
Buyers ready and willing to assume the risks those troubled assets carry will pay prices driven by today's market realities.
My estimate is 65% of face value.
It seems to me that new buyers will pay an AVERAGE price that is about 65% of the price paid by the borrowers who defaulted.
Thus, the government will own these troubled assets TEMPORARILY -- long enough for market pricing to regain its footing.
The bigger issue is the public's understanding of REGULATION.
In the US, for the most part, our guiding philosophy says that Everything Not Prohibited is Permitted. That's essential to the concept of Freedom.
However, a naive public is demanding that the US government Prohibit Everything and Permit almost nothing.
That's usually known as Totalitarianism.
One of Wall Street's most successful products has been mutual funds. They contain Trillions of dollars of assets.
But they are bound by an increasing level of Regulation. Further adding to the silliness is the requirement that securities analysts declare their ownership of the securities they follow. As if this means anything.
To sidestep the intrusiveness of onerous and pointless regulations, Wall Streeters fed up with Regulation began forming Hedge Funds. Totally and completely legal AND most important -- UnRegulated.
It's more than likely -- it's a certainty -- that Hedge Funds will buy substantial amounts of securities tied to the Mortgage Meltdown. They will take the assets off the government's hands as quickly as possible and probably earn an eye-popping profit when they do.
What is the lesson learned?
Don't lend money to people who might fail to repay it.
What is the unpleasant truth of this lesson?
That the people who were supposed to benefit most from the relaxation of credit standards are the ones who are at the center of the mortgage problem.
In other words, being "fair" to black and hispanic borrowers created a perilous lending environment that has punished all of us.
NS,
I see, if you remove standards and minimum requirements and there is a negative result it is Regulation.
If you remove standards and minimum requirements and there is a positive result, then it is Deregulation.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I was going through my old blog and found some great comments from you about how the "credit crisis" was just a "media invention" and how the mortgage "crisis" wasn't really that bad at all, and nothing compared to the S&L crisis of the 80s.
I was so proud of myself for correctly predicting, despite claims to the contrary from "experts" such as yourself, that this "crisis" would not be "well-contained." I mean seriously, this was a no-brainer. Since the worst of these assets has been sliced up into tranches, repacked and re-leveraged multiple times and sold all over the place, there was no way this could remain "well-contained".
I suppose your assertion that the hedge funds (oh by the way, how do I invest in those?) will swoop in and buy these investments and make a pretty penny can be filed in the same basket as your prediction that as soon as the housing market slipped by 10% the smart money would swoop in and buy property and save it.
I'm not holding my breath since I haven't found one damn thing you've been right about in this whole mess.
And finally, with regards to who this was supposed to help, I know plenty of people who would not otherwise been able to buy a house, who are now owners, within their means and very happy.
It is the speculative buyers (and some late to market fools, true) who are really bringing this whole thing down and we are all paying for that.
Wait, I'm not, I bought in the Czech Republic. What a fool am I!
Let's see bitch I voted for the President because he's the best person. I voted for the white man(Ted Strickland) for Governor because J.Kenneth Blackwell was involved in voter fraud.If Blackwell had his way ,I would be in the oven with the rest of the brothers.He's a boot licking, dick sucking ,white ass kissing ponk. Fuck you, and Fuck White racist America!
kid,
You can believe what you want about Obama. But he is already on course for a disastrous presidency. The black Jimmy Carter.
Even fellow Democrats are abandoning him.
Post a Comment