The "white margin to watch"... is that the way we talk now? I find that pretty unpleasant, and it's also odd to be talking with such specificity — 61-39! — while rejecting the powerfully specific mechanism that is the Electoral College. Once you tip to a plurality in a state, it doesn't matter how many white or nonwhite voters go this way or that (except in Maine and Nebraska). So polling that ignores the Electoral College is inherently inaccurate in a close election.
The campaigns are designed around winning the Electoral College. George Bush explained it well, when challenged about his 2000 win that lacked a popular vote majority. (Despite what it says at the link, that interview took place on Dec. 5, 2000.)
You know... had this been an election on who got the most popular votes I suspect we might have had a little different strategy.Typical Bush humor. Of course, he means he would have had a completely different strategy.
For example, I might have spent more time in my own home state of maximizing the vote here. One of the reasons why the Electoral College is in place, is it forces candidates like me to go and spend time in some of the smaller states that candidates might ignore. And so I-I-you know, I understand the results. But my whole strategy was based on securing enough electoral votes to become the president.As I wrote in a law review article on the Electoral College (“Electoral College Reform: Déjà Vu,” 95 Northwestern University Law Review 993 (2001)):
Who will not admit that George W. Bush could have stirred up another half million votes by campaigning hard in Texas, a state he knew he would win, and in southern California and upstate New York, states with large numbers of voters where he could not expect to achieve a plurality?But there's no equivalent safeguard precluding a racial strategy. You can concentrate efforts on winning huge majorities of particular groups. There's something unpleasant about that, so there is something of a safeguard in the way Americans rebel against racializing politics. You can't go too far without losing the good opinion of people whose votes you need.
But you can go kind of far. Obama only needs 39% of the white vote. Supposedly. Ignoring the Electoral College, which does complicate matters, but I assume the Obama (and Romney) strategists are doing the appropriate calculations — for example, in Wisconsin, a swing state with a relatively low percentage of black and Hispanic voters. If winning Wisconsin is determinative, 39% is not the key number. But surely they know about the real, complicated game of racial politics in the United States.
Posts
217 comments:
1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»Will whites be that racist? We'll see!
The librul [and most especially librul baby boomer] talking heads focus like a laser on race. Didn't you hear Chris Mathews ask Willie Brown if Issa' probe of Fast & Furious was "ethnic" driven?
Btw- your point that the EC is a "structural safeguard" is spot on.
Lol. Pretty hilarious that in 2012 anyone would assume to look at hordes of "whites", en masse, as a discrete, analyzable political bloc. As a data unit, it's becoming an increasingly less durable one.
Another privilege of being white:
We can vote for whoever we want!
Well at least you no longer extol the virtues of determining who can run and vote, Bag'O. But good job on reducing the voter rolls. That might do the trick.
As the country becomes increasingly non-white, the Republican party is going to have to start winning more of these non-white people or else become a defacto white-only party and start winning 70+ percent of the whites.
These are somewhat contradictory goals (at least the way Republicans conceive of them), and today's Republicans are in a difficult spot as they haven't decided which of the two possible strategies to pursue.
Romney is probably going to go for maximizing his white vote, but that strategy will probably become untenable in the future because the race-baiting that the Republicans uses to try to drive up the white vote will eventually turn off too many non-racist whites.
It's gonna be their big excuse if Dictator Zero loses.
Fact is, how many black or Hispanic votes can he afford to lose?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Lol. Pretty hilarious that in 2012 anyone would assume to look at hordes of "whites", en masse, as a discrete, analyzable political bloc. As a data unit, it's becoming an increasingly less durable one.
Other way around, actually. The yoot vote is going to be soured by the fact half of them can't find a decent job, etc.
Then, too, the Hispanic vote isn't as monolithic as the Demos like to think.
And, of course, the rising tide of Asians (more of them coming in than Hispanics) will be more likely to vote Republican.
The Demos are stuck with the very chi-chi and the very poor - at least those who think Zero will still pay their mortgage.
I look at the 10:57 AM comment and imagine how many times the European rulers of the Belgian Congo or Rhodesia must have said something like that about their colonies in Africa.
You find that "pretty unpleasant"? The Democratic party has built its modern franchise on dividing voters into identity groups and pandering to them as minorities. The logical endpoint of this strategy is Lebanon, a nation where hostile minorities jockey for temporary advantage in a constant political struggle punctuated by infrequent civil war. And there are a lot of people on the left who have no problem with that outcome, for various reasons.
Other way around, actually. The yoot vote is going to be soured by the fact half of them can't find a decent job, etc.
This is about as plain an admission as any that Republican congressmen hoped and fought for as bad an economy as they could have, to tie Obama to.
Then, too, the Hispanic vote isn't as monolithic as the Demos like to think.
Yeah, but they don't like to be treated like criminals based on citizenship status. Funny, that.
Since neither Asians and Hispanics tend to be more upwardly mobile than blacks and thus more likely to vote Republican, Hatman's little Demo talking point turns into the Demos' worst nightmare.
Wait a minute. Have "white" and "Hispanic" reverted to being separate categories again? Which one gets the "white Hispanics?"
In rural Wisconsin, when someone suggests going to popular vote instead of Electoral College...we just say one word: Milwaukee. Enough said. Gov Walker made one comment in the debates and rural counties swung to him. He said, "...we don't want to make the rest of the state into Milwaukee, with all of it's problems."
I think the white vote breakdown is overrated, for some of the resaons that Ann said, e.g., Wiconsin. But why it is unpleasant to talk about the white vote, but okay to talk about Obama getting 95% of the black vote?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Other way around, actually. The yoot vote is going to be soured by the fact half of them can't find a decent job, etc.
This is about as plain an admission as any that Republican congressmen hoped and fought for as bad an economy as they could have, to tie Obama to.
Sorry, Little Zero did it all by himself. All the hoping in the world couldn't change the fact that the Republicans have been putting up all sorts of jobs bills which Dingy Harry and Zero have worked so very hard to kill.
Then, too, the Hispanic vote isn't as monolithic as the Demos like to think.
Yeah, but they don't like to be treated like criminals based on citizenship status. Funny, that.
Yeah, funny how Zero had the Secret Service take away the eating utensils at the Hispanic event.
But Ritmo seems to forget that Zero's big amnesty initiative seems to have laid a big egg in the polls.
Which means Hispanics are thinking about the economy more than amnesty.
Funny that.
It is indeed unpleasant, but that is the way they talk inside the Beltway.
However, it may also be myopic; the Democrat left are working very hard at reducing their non-white margin all the time now.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Wait a minute. Have "white" and "Hispanic" reverted to being separate categories again? Which one gets the "white Hispanics?
Think George Zimmerman. Who will he vote for?
Excellent point, BTW.
"The Democratic party has built its modern franchise on dividing voters into identity groups and pandering to them as minorities. The logical endpoint of this strategy is Lebanon, a nation where hostile minorities jockey for temporary advantage in a constant political struggle punctuated by infrequent civil war. And there are a lot of people on the left who have no problem with that outcome, for various reasons."
This works as a Mad Lib, too.
The _Republican_ party has built its modern franchise on _agglomerating_ voters into _a disinterested, unmotivated mass_ and pandering to _it_ as _a bunch of manequins_. The logical endpoint of this strategy is _Nazi Germany_, a nation where hostile _majority and powerful elites_ jockey for temporary advantage in a constant political struggle punctuated by infrequent _wars declared on the rest of the world_. And there are a lot of people on the _right_ who have no problem with that outcome, for various reasons.
Also, can't forget how big on unification of interests and conformity the USSR was. Also, the PRC. No competing interests or identities there. No, Sir.
The "white margin to watch"... is that the way we talk now?
What the hell are you talking about "is that the way we talk...?" That's the way we vote. It's the explicit strategy of the Democratic Party. What would be said in the media about an election where virtually 100% of white voters cast ballots for the white candidate? But this is very nearly the case with Obama and black voters.
Could a white political operative openly proclaim, as I have heard black ones do in news blurbs, that it's only necessary to get whites to the polls because there's no doubt at all that they will vote correctly if they vote at all? Racial politics directly reflect racial interests and are a fact on the ground.
How did we end up with a situation where whites voting in the interests of whites is racist and not even to be spoken of but to censure blacks for the exact same thing is also racist? I've heard the convoluted and nuanced justifications for this and I reject them all on a very simple basis. Occam's razor. If you have to go that far to explain some aspect of truth then a simpler explanation trumps you.
The simplest explanation here is that the white knuckled death grip of the Democratic Party on the black vote is, at it's basis, a racist strategy that works like nothing else could. If they will not allow that then they must allow the formation of, for example, a Congressional White Caucus without comment. Don't hold your breath.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
I look at the 10:57 AM comment and imagine how many times the European rulers of the Belgian Congo or Rhodesia must have said something like that about their colonies in Africa.
You don't have to imagine it. Just look how the democrat party treats black voters.
Arguing with an ignorant liar is pointless. I'll show the rest of you why:
Sorry, Little Zero did it all by himself. All the hoping in the world couldn't change the fact that the Republicans have been putting up all sorts of jobs bills which Dingy Harry and Zero have worked so very hard to kill.
Name a single formerly Republican economic strategy Obama agreed to that the Republicans actually went along with. Or better yet, cite these mythical "Jobs Bills" that the Republicans proposed that were vetoed and what the legislation entailed.
His other "idea" sounds too dumb to bother with.
Good thing Black voters have condescending (but certainly not white) betters like "Rusty" to tell them what they should think, right Rusty?
It's a colonization by proxy of the political will. Very clever. Not condescending at all. No sense of superiority in that idea.
I'm not gonna take the bait O Lorem ipsum.
But he's trolling so hard, bagoh. That's just mean of you!
I wonder if Team Romney has a plan to drive up white support. Any ideas what it could be?
When 90-95% of Blacks vote Democrat, no matter what - whites become the swing vote.
Smartest thing you said today, O Bag O'Bad ideas. The traps are out this morning, and laid aplenty. Lots of cheese there.
But of course, you could just take back (or even walk back) your original comment.
is that the way we talk now? I find that pretty unpleasant"
Wind: sown? Check!
Whirlwind: reaped? Check!
The "white margin" to watch...I find that pretty unpleasant...
Yes, unpleasant as all getout to have to admit that the white margin and only the white margin stands between the Left and the realization of the Left's dream of dreams: the obliteration of liberty.
Dubbya's observations about the Electoral College strategy in presidential elections and it's beneficial effect on national politics are exactly correct. It's not original analysis naturally. Wider appreciation of this sort of view might have preserved us from the direct election of senators. If we go much further in the direction of radical democratic electoral politics we'll reduce the country to New England, The West Coast, and The Colonies.
As the USA becomes less white its politics will resemble those of California, and Republicans will out of power for a very, very, long time.
Which is OK with them, as long as you get a low capital gains rate.
I think that this may be based on an assumption that the Dems are going to get certain, high percentages of Blacks and Hispanics, and that motivation will be fairly uniform. And, I would suggest that this may not be true this time. Romney is unlikely to get a lot of the Blacks voting for him, but if voting were today, Black turnout would be quite a bit lower than 4 years ago. And, the Hispanic vote is not guaranteed to Obama either.
So, let me suggest that Obama probably cannot win unless he can get the 39% or so of White voters, but that Romney might be able to win even if he doesn't get those numbers, if he is making up for it with enthusiasm or with minority votes. And, that is because Obama isn't going to increase his percentage or turnout of minority voters, while Romney surely could.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Arguing with an ignorant liar is pointless. I'll show the rest of you why:
Sorry, Little Zero did it all by himself. All the hoping in the world couldn't change the fact that the Republicans have been putting up all sorts of jobs bills which Dingy Harry and Zero have worked so very hard to kill.
Name a single formerly Republican economic strategy Obama agreed to that the Republicans actually went along with. Or better yet, cite these mythical "Jobs Bills" that the Republicans proposed that were vetoed and what the legislation entailed.
As always, Ritmo resorts to invective and obfuscation when he's caught. Not to mention a whole lot of projection.
The Republicans have yet to get a jobs bill past Dingy Harry's Senate, so no bills vetoed, just killed.
And Little Zero isn't going to agree to any proposal put up by the Republicans.
He Won and got all his bills passed.
And we know what happened.
And now, if he agreed to anything proposed by the Republicans, he would have to at least share the credit - and we all know he's not doing that in an election year.
And, for those who need a summary, Here are the "forgotten 15".
His other "idea" sounds too dumb to bother with.
Oh, that the big amnesty announcement went over like a lead balloon and Hispanics, like everyone else are thinking mostly about the economy?
That idea?
I accept Ritmo's surrender.
Let's stop all this racial political analysis bullshit. Obviously the Republicans have done a stellar job trying to improve the economy (despite Obama's inherently evil efforts to thwart them) and simply deserve to win on that basis alone, right?
Their stated goal of his personal failure had no racial basis at all! They just wanted to improve the economy, because of how well that would have made them look going into the 2012 election. Right?
When Bill Clinton was first elected, you really didn't hear too much about the virtues of winning the popular vote.
bagoh20 said...
Another privilege of being white:
We can vote for whoever we want!
Ritmo responded peevishly to bagoh20:
But of course, you could just take back (or even walk back) your original comment.
LOL You guys are like Cheech and Chong.
Wherein edutcher reveals that he doesn't know that House bills have names, numbers and legislative proposals contained within them.
But he works well as a party favor. Weddings, anniversaries, bar mitzvahs, you name it. Edutcher is the roving talking point and stays on task like the machine that he is. Come rain or shine, he's as dependable in that limited and outdated regard as the USPS.
Imagine writing an article on this subject in which the word "turnout" does not appear once!
Edutcher is the roving talking point and stays on task like the machine that he is.
Predictable. Reliable. Just like you. Just like me. When do we get paid?
Why do you think it's a personal thing, chickelit? Bag'O said something that objectively meant to reduce American culture to a mythical utopia while speaking in a way that proved it wasn't.
I don't dislike Bag'O. But what he said was wrong. He's just more innocent than most of the others here. At least he doesn't mean to be demeaning.
The "white margin to watch"... is that the way we talk now?
They are just paving the way to cry "racism" if Obama loses. It MUST be racist because it certainly couldn't be that the economy sucks, people are unhappy and his policies have done nothing more than to make everything worse.
Nope.....it is racism. Pure and simple. (snark)
But what he said was wrong.
Why?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Wherein edutcher reveals that he doesn't know that House bills have names, numbers and legislative proposals contained within them.
Translation:
Damn! I didn't think he'd link to the whole list.
Once again I accept his surrender.
(I wonder if Edward Canby felt this way in the late Spring of '65)
Predictable. Reliable. Just like you. Just like me. When do we get paid?
Richard Florida says we've entered an economy now dominated by a "creative class". I assume this means expecting payment (or at least more decent remuneration) on the basis of predictability has become passe.
Wage slavery is as real a modern dystopia as they come.
The fact that Ritmo thinks that the current governments in the Congo and Zimbabwe are morally superior to their predecessors is informative. He is the heir of those who felt that it was better to let a million peasants starve than allow a single kulak to live better than a peasant. When, during the Cultural Revolution, Red schoolteachers were encouraging schoolchildren to beat their fellow classmates to death because they were the children of landlords, you can bet Ritmo was in the forefront of those protesting Pinochet.....Ritmo's dreams of equality always end up with a lot of people dead.
So, Ritmo, you're admitting that the Democrats who won both houses of Congress in 2006 had both the motive and the means to deliberately sink the economy in order to improve the chances of a Democrat being elected President in 2008?
"But what he said was wrong."
Why?
It's demeaning to blacks and the history of civil rights in this country to pretend that certain groups didn't have to fight (and still have to fight) harder for equal treatment before the law. This takes (and took) a necessarily collective, identity-driven effort. To equate it to whatever white voters had to deal with is ridiculously immoral.
...Democrats who won both houses of Congress in 2006...
Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for less than a few weeks at most. Stop being ignorant.
The fact that Ritmo thinks that the current governments in the Congo and Zimbabwe are morally superior to their predecessors...
Never said that.
Taking it a step further, legitimacy only translates into moral superiority in the warped mind of a reactionary loon.
Or better yet, cite these mythical "Jobs Bills" that the Republicans proposed that were vetoed and what the legislation entailed.
Note that the idiot said this in response to an assertion that the Democrats in Congress have stopped Republican "jobs bills"
Watching ritty the retard bring the incoherence is becoming passe.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
r-proof majority for less than a few weeks at most. Stop being ignorant.
Actually, it was more than 60 days of the legislative calendar.
But of course, you're not sane, informed, or interested in facts.
Idiot.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Wherein edutcher reveals that he doesn't know that House bills have names, numbers and legislative proposals contained within them.
The link provided contained the names of the bills.
Why, it is almost as if you're an idiot or something.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Wherein edutcher reveals that he doesn't know that House bills have names, numbers and legislative proposals contained within them.
Wherein you are provide a link to a Web site with such information as "H.R. 2433—Veterans Opportunity to Work Act" and you pretend it isn't there.
Jay now resorts to fighting the good fight, ensuring that everyone knows that 60 days is enough time for a congressional session to get very serious bills passed. And certainly a hell of a lot more time than a "few weeks". It's EIGHT OR NINE WEEKS, DAMMIT!!
Using the "Warren" calculus, if you mother is white and your father is black, does your vote count as half and half?
I get so confused because if you aren't 100% northern European, you're not white, near as I can tell these days.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Jay now resorts to fighting the good fight, ensuring that everyone knows that 60 days is enough time for a congressional session to get very serious bills passed.
Three months of working days. Not consecutive days, not pretend days.
That is not "a few weeks"
Dumbass.
And remember, you're like real big on accountability and stuff!
Really. You are.
Entire nations have been built in eight or nine weeks.
Why, it's almost as if Jay's an idiot (not obvious?) or something.
Which nations, por favor?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Entire nations have been built in eight or nine weeks.
Par for the course assclown.
Wrong on facts, move the goal posts.
PS: 60 working days is 12 weeks.
Idiot.
Ritmo: Your historical position on this blog has been racist. I could easily dig and find comments of yours where you cynically identified, named, and cheered "brown" and minority interests while laughing and encouraging the demise of more traditional majority American values. It's just your schtick. What's most disturbing is that you can't decouple politics from race.
I find it repugnant that you can't conceive of allpeople having conservative (especially fiscally) interests, regardless of race. Then again, you couldn't countenance Scott Walker.
THREE MONTHS!!!
I mean, it's almost as much time as The Continental Congress had!!!
Very extensive time period to reverse the legislative directives that gave us the Great Recession!
I mean, which Congressional Class gets more than THREE MONTHS!? EVER?
So Democrats are super duper smart & want "jobs" and to "fix" all that stupid stuff Bush did, yet given a super majority for more than 60 working days, they did nothing.
And ritty cheers them on.
Keep clapping, stupid. I can see November from my window.
Very extensive time period to reverse the legislative directives that gave us the Great Recession!
Yes!
Because an someone who like alls all about economics like you, can point out all these "legislative directives" that caused a recession!
Really! You can!
Lol. Pretty hilarious that in 2012 anyone would assume to look at hordes of "whites", en masse, as a discrete, analyzable political bloc. As a data unit, it's becoming an increasingly less durable one.
Yes, Ritmo is right, this is right. Now if only Ritmo would apply this open-minded vision of white skin--that it does not determine who I am or how I think--and apply it to people with yellow or brown or black skin.
It's annoying how liberals allow that white people have free will, but deny it to any other people. Ritmo mocks the idea that we know how white people think. But he is quite sure he knows how black or brown or yellow people think. Despite the fact that there are millions and millions of people who fit that description. And Ritmo has not met 99.99% of them. And yet he knows who they are and how they think! Oh the God-like power of the liberal mind.
Of course, one may assume that black and brown and yellow people may vote for the racists who will give them special advantages for being black or brown or yellow. We can safely assume self-interest on behalf of all people. Thus people tend to vote selfishly. What benefits me and mine?
But we can and should feel free to demonize the liberals who engage in this racial calculus, who divide us and pit us against one another. This racism is poison. And as numbers shift and there are fewer white people, we will see harsher racial attitudes. Because the Democratic party has encouraged and supported this madness.
So look forward to more discussions about the "white vote," Ritmo, and think hard about how your party's racial appeals has legitimized this rhetoric. Think hard about how your party has mocked any attempt at a colorblind society. As you liberals count us by race and divide us into races and make horrible assumptions about people based on their skin color. I say this racism is vile and you liberals need to stop feeding off it.
I think the Democratic coalition will hold together only so long as its members perceive that they are dividing up a white pie. Unlimited immigration will put downward pressure on wages and that ultimately hurts the wages of blacks in the service sector. A coalition of black and Hispanic voters can push for increased social spending, but the porter on the night shift might think higher wages is the way to go.....Does Andy really think that there is less anti-gay prejudice in the black and Hispanic communities than among white Christians? Ditto feminists and their concerns. The Democratic coalition is united more by their dislike of white, bourgeoise society than by any common goals.
Because an someone who like alls all about economics like you, can point out all these "legislative directives" that caused a recession!
This is a piece of literary genius. Seriously. It competes with works by Faulkner. I mean, it only sounds semi-literate, but the parrot who posted it thinks he's a genius.
Who needs critics when it comes to dumb assholes like Jay?
Also note to the silly dipshit talking about "legislative directives":
The day Pelosi became Speaker DJIA: 12,800; unemployment rate: 4.5%; Budget Deficit: $247.7 billion; AVG GDP growth 2006: 3.4%
Those words don't mean what you think they mean, bozo.
Chickelit:
As the autistic robot that you are, you pretend to be incapable of understanding that there is strength in numbers. Therefore, you believe that racial antagonism directed at a majority is somehow equivalently wrong, powerful and destructive as that directed toward a minority.
As Jay would say, Why, it's almost as if you don't understand math or something?
Traditional values aren't protected in the constitution, dummy. The individual rights historically denied on account of race, are. The fact that you entirely missed that very significant piece of history (and contemporary reality) makes you undeserving of seriously discussing this issue further.
Shorter ritty the retard: Vote for us, we're incompetent!
Think hard about how your party has mocked any attempt at a colorblind society.
What a noble concept. And one that the Soviet Union found out, doesn't exist.
If one day such a thing does come to exist, then it would be worth fighting for and preserving. But until that day comes, "traditionalists" are just fighting for the same privilege that the Nazis fought for. They want conformity and uniformity without appealing to a common humanity, first. And that's why minorities who don't have as powerful a set of networks and biases at their disposal in this country won't vote for them. Yes, a few will manage to "bootstrap" themselves up regardless, but not enough for it to be meaningful examples to everyone else.
But you are too ignorant to see that.
Romney will get 62.5 percent of the white vote even though Obama is rich and plays a lot of golf and whines a lot and vacations at Martha's Vineyard. Romney is rich, but doesn't golf or whine or go to Martha's Vineyard. Obama trounced McCain among wealthier whites. Working class whites don't dig Obama. He doesn't dig them either. Obama's problem is that wealthier whites aren't digging him as much. Since the thrill is gone with this group, Obama will lose. It's not enough to golf, whine, or vacation at Martha's Vineyard. Wealthier Whites are foolish but not stupid.
The vote is about lying, corruption and incompetence.
American culture mostly rejects those.
It's hard for the left to work race in if you start with that.
They have to instead start with race and go from there.
Always start with race.
The idea is to make an Obama loss seem as if the country would be going backwards, to the days of separate water fountains and riding the back of the bus.. its not good enough that Obama won in 2008.
Obama has to the NY Yankees of presidential politics.. otherwise there must be some explanation, other than his record.
The Nazis fought for a colorblind society? Only in Ritmo bizzaro world.
Ritmo must work for Bell&Howell.
Or, since it's the computer age, Sony.
Never seen such projection.
blah blah blah. Same code-speak, different day.
If you don't pull the lever for Obama, you're a racist.
While it was racist white guilt that elected Boreo, it will be white racist revenge that will un-elect Boreo. Most especially the the white vaginas. When his composite white vagina 'could not be black for Boreo' he wisely declined to reply. Boreo would have to state the obvious: While all vaginas are created equal [all pink inside] black vaginas are so much tighter than white vaginas.
Ritmo, you are correct that I believe that racial antagonism directed at a majority is as equivalently wrong and destructive as that directed toward a minority. I think most people would agree with that.
"The Nazis fought for a colorblind society? Only in Ritmo bizzaro world"
Not *that* bizarro. After all, Ritmo, hatman, garage, leslyn,Cookie et al are supporters of
the Anti-Semitic Party
"As the country becomes increasingly non-white, the Republican party is going to have to start winning more of these non-white people or else become a defacto white-only party and start winning 70+ percent of the whites."
Why do you think that the left is so brutal toward any non-whites that are Republican? They know they have to keep that vote wrapped up.
As Bagoh said, white privilege is being able to vote for anyone you wish.
Minorities don't have that, and it's not the right or Republicans (you know, those racist types) enforcing it. It's the left.
Look at the spectacle of it.
The Obama administration is responsible for a veritable flood, thousands, of guns being funneled to Mexican cartels. Not a few, possibly not even in numbers we can say "they'd have got them anyway". And most of the people *known* to have been killed are Mexican. And yet, the side of this accused of being "ethnically" motivated is the right, it's the Republicans.
Because the Hispanic vote belongs to the Democrats. No. Matter. What.
Same with the gay vote, hum? We've got Joy Behar explaining that gay men think with their penises. Either they vote their single issue "orientation" and vote Democrat, or they vote Republican because Romney's sons are attractive. Brainless penises, all of them.
If a Republican said something like this she'd be the subject of outrage. But Joy isn't Republican.
And then there's the ridiculous "War on Women."
Straight-white-male privilege is getting to vote for who you want to vote for.
Not *that* bizarro. After all, Ritmo, hatman, garage, leslyn,Cookie et al are supporters of
the Anti-Semitic Party
My family dropped bombs on Nazis. How bout yours?
If one day such a thing does come to exist, then it would be worth fighting for and preserving.
1. Stop asking for racial information on the census.
2. Stop asking for racial information on the job application.
3. Stop asking for racial information on the college application.
4. Stop asking for racial information in the polling data.
Quit dividing people into races. That's how you stop racial division, dummy.
Bagoh said: "I'm not gonna take the bait O Lorem ipsum."
My God, that's the most genius name for Ritmo evar.
It never occurred to me before, but ORS is just a random Lipsum generator.
"So polling that ignores the Electoral College is inherently inaccurate in a close election."
Yes. Even tho California is now a majority/minority state, its electoral college votes have gone to Dems for decades. So who cares that minority Dems are voting for Obama here?
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Electoral College as minorities and whites self-segregate nationwide. The outmigration of whites from CA reduced whites by 850K in ten years.
The Nazis fought for a colorblind society? Only in Ritmo bizzaro world.
Well, an all-white one, in any event.
Lets be clear Garage, your father/grandfather/uncle? dropped bombs on Germans. It was needed and heroic, but they weren't Nazi killing bombs, they were bombs that killed all people. My uncles and father-in-law[bombadiers and pilot] were very aware of this. I would hope a sensitive progressive would have some empathy.
People vote based on many factors. The idiocy of the people advocating each side is certainly is one of those factors. This is a bad year to be a liberal idiot.
Ritmo, you are correct that I believe that racial antagonism directed at a majority is as equivalently wrong and destructive as that directed toward a minority. I think most people would agree with that.
People who don't understand math.
Do you think our President's support and prospects in November would be better or worse if he was 100% white?
In Chickelit's world, there are no advantages to numeric majorities. 0.1 and 100 are equally great.
It probably explains why Mitt Romney could gang up on a gay teenager, and assault him, for the teen's alleged "crime" of, you know, "standing out".
Because the offense of one person standing out merits assault at the hands of someone who has an entire gang behind him to back him up.
In Chickelit's world.
Do you think our President's support and prospects in November would be better or worse if he was 100% white?
I don't know and I don't care.
Why do you?
"I wonder if Team Romney has a plan to drive up white support. Any ideas what it could be?"
Keep Obama talking and making speeches.
It probably explains why Mitt Romney could gang up on a gay teenager, and assault him, for the teen's alleged "crime" of, you know, "standing out".
There's that naked Sullivanism again. Do you guys email?
"Very extensive time period to reverse the legislative directives that gave us the Great Recession!
"
Yes, it is plenty of time to repeal the Community Reinvestment Act. That was what you meant, wasn't it ?
This guy is a troll.
"But of course, you could just take back (or even walk back) your original comment."
This is the comment about white privilege.
And I have to wonder why anyone would have to walk that back. The whole "it's different because of the math" and "you're the oppressor because of the color of your skin" is based on the new goal posts for racism which is white privilege.
And the concept is exactly that.
White people are privileged for the things they don't have to consider, don't have to think about. Are they a race traitor if they vote the wrong way? Nope. Will other white people put pressure on them because of their whiteness if they vote the wrong way? Nope.
Now, it may be uncomfortable to people for Bagoh to have pointed that out, but not only is that the proper way to use the term "white privilege" in accordance with the new goalposts of racial oppression, it's actually true.
White people are privileged to get to vote for anyone they want. They can work for any administration they want, too, without being called house negroes or worse.
Synova,
I didn't feel like staying after class to tutor the slow kid today, Thanks for trying to help the less fortunate.
There's that naked Sullivanism again. Do you guys email?
No. But I also don't pick individual "enemies" to demonize and make examples of when it comes to discussions having nothing to do with that person. I guess someone who thinks one person generally lacks the destructive capability of many might tend to think that way.
But I suspect that autism might make that a difficult concept to understand. Autistic people are bothered by differences, idiosyncrasies, things that stand out and call into question their rule-based need for conformity.
See, me, OTOH, I fight the disease and not the person. Except when the disease has no treatment.
Democracy is more important than privilege. One constrains the concentration of power and the other favors it. And power corrupts. Even when the people holding it are Republicans.
Synova. I look to you and bagoh for both reason and humor. Thanks to both of you. It's a very good time to be a smart conservative.
It's not worth arguing with ORS types. As Mark Steyn has written, it's like playing tennis with someone who says your ace is a social construct. You notice a person like that, while clearly intelligent, never cites one fact or statistic to support any argument? It's all just the usual Race Studies sophistry picked up in a graduate class somewhere, with just enough ad hominem and invective to incite people without being kicked out. It's sad really; and what a glorious amount of time he has on his hands that could otherwise be spent improving himself or actually going into the world to help the people he purports to care about.
No, Bag. She didn't defend it. You did.
Oh the humanity! Spare me a fatuous liberal self-aggrandizing halo hoister. How Ritmo loves him some unfortunate minority to exploit.
I'm glad "Holmes" feels he knows so much about me and my alleged shortcomings/need for self-improvement. (Nothing ad hominem about that, BTW).
Holmes, why don't you set the principle of taking your own advice and telling us about yourself and all that you've done to make the world a better place. And then I guess I'll more seriously consider all these supposedly constructive comments of yours on this thread that I somehow must have missed.
Yeah.
Oh the humanity! Spare me a fatuous liberal self-aggrandizing halo hoister. How Ritmo loves him some unfortunate minority to exploit.
Oh the humanity! Spare me a bullying reactionary self-aggrandizing trident bearer. How wyo sis loves him some unfortunate minority to either ignore or bully around.
I'll add Tu Quoque to ORS's argument capabilities, which is really just a subset of ad hominem.
If it was me, I'd stop poking at that nasty old rat and just let him slither away.
And if anyone knows not only about ad hominems, but how deploy them, it's you, Holmes.
So at least you've got that going for you.
Other than that, can you explain why object to the topic of conversation set out in this post, actually being discussed? Because a lot of the people who, it might seem, would agree with you on this thread also seem to have that problem.
My initial point was simple. Analyzing a singular "white vote" is not really all that useful. Any other points that you resent being made? Might as well let me know now.
Thanks,
Romney has an excellent case to make to black and hispanic voters, and he's making it. His campaign is expending time, effort, and money in that outreach. Those groups, especially the former, are suffering disproportionately in this economy.
(And that's leaving completely aside the effects Fast & Furious and Obama's gay marriage flip-flop and the Catholic Church lawsuit etc. may have on those voters.)
Neither Obama's transparent pandering gimmicks nor the color of his skin secures a lock on those votes.
Might I add, Ritmo, that while we cannot eliminate racism, any more than we can eliminate crime, there is only one party that says that the government may engage in racism. There is one party that divides us by race, and collects racial data on all the citizens. There is one party who wants to give jobs to people based on their race. There is one party who obsesses on race and brings it into every dispute. That is your party, sir. You are the party of the racial grievance. And I would not draw comparisons to Nazi Germany if I were you, as Adolf Hitler was a big fan of racial division, and loved to play that sport.
I have listed four simple steps we can do to greatly reduce the importance of race in our society. Please tell us why you think racial identity is a net boon for society. Please tell us why racial solidarity is a net boon for society. Please tell us why we must all learn to think in racial terms, and divide into racial groups.
Synova @12:59 PM,
Exactly right, and expressed as well as I've ever seen it done. Thank you.
wv: ksortu 86
Saint Croix--"Please tell us why we must all learn to think in racial terms, and divide into racial groups."
The cynic in me thinks its the easiest way to focus govt largess on the appropriate groups--if they had to do that on any other basis, they couldnt do it.
The African American and Latino vote will never swing to Romney in enough numbers to make a difference, Yashu. Every single one of the "scandals" you listed don't mean anything to the minorities, they are more concerned with keeping a roof over their heads and their wages from declining or stagnating further.
As you say he has an excellent case to make with those groups, but will he convince them? I don't think so. What happens if Romney doesn't deliver the economic recovery he promises? We end up with Obama lite, unless he is the cult figure Crack thinks he is.
I do seriously wonder how well Obama would be doing if he was seen as a white guy.
Most of the remaining defense of him is dwindling down the kind of stuff you have been hearing a lot lately from the girls on "The View", or the likes of Cher, Randi Rhodes, and everyone on MSNBC, etc. It's all various versions of "I never saw anything like this before. The hatred of this President is hard to imagine if he was white." Well, what if he was white? What would they say then? Because, I know people who don't like Obama would still not like him one bit more as a white incompetent leftist.
I have listed four simple steps we can do to greatly reduce the importance of race in our society.
Yes, you have done that. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but you've done that.
Please tell us why you think racial identity is a net boon for society.
I never said that I thought it was. But it exists.
Chris Rock makes good jokes about it though, and I don't think that hurts anyone.
Dr. Dre makes good raps about it, though, and I don't think that hurts anyone.
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a good book about it, and I don't think that hurt anyone, either.
Please tell us why racial solidarity is a net boon for society.
I never said it was. Acknowledging that something exists is not an endorsement. But I do think that struggles against arbitrary disparities or enforcement of privilege are worth engaging.
And if that's what you object you, I might ask why you think that arbitrary disparities and privileges are so important.
Please tell us why we must all learn to think in racial terms, and divide into racial groups.
We don't have to, but we do. It's right to question that because these are artificial things. In Brazil racial groups are defined differently than they are in the U.S. Race is an artificial construct.
But just because something is artificial doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with others. If it did, then why would certain works of art or attempted art bother you so much? Why the outrage at Mein Kampf or the works of Andres Serrano? These were made by men, hence, they're artificial things. Yet, we still question their ability to stir objectionable impulses without denying that such impulses would still exist even if those works didn't.
The last I looked, Mr Obama is a white as he is black. I guess the white 50% is irrelevant.
Actually, you could say that Harriet Beecher Stowe hurt a lot of people in that her work influenced us by agitating for a Civil War. But I still think it was worth it.
Thing is, Ritmo. You've said several things that make it clear that you agree with the white privilege thing. You've said that the math makes racism by whites or blacks different. That it's the numbers, not the attitudes that define when it's wrong. And that there are social structures that support whites and disadvantage minorities.
Pretty obviously you've bought into the whole thing.
And when Bagoh makes a remark that is right in line with that philosophy you find it insulting and condescending.
Hello?
It is. It's insulting beyond just about anything.
It's damaging and hurtful and practically designed to increase bitterness and resentment.
But it's not the *right* insisting on it. It's the left. We're supposed to wallow in this thing that's true. And it is true. But we're supposed to wallow in it and somehow, magically, racial relations will improve. Somehow by emphasizing division, insisting on and strengthening division, things will improve.
Why is it so easy to see the hurtfulness of it when it's words in the mouth of the other side, and so impossible to see when it's words in your own?
"What happens if Romney doesn't deliver the economic recovery he promises"
I think you will see an immediate upturn in confidence, investment, and hiring, but that will be driven only by the impression that business and wealth is no longer wearing a target on it's back.
Unfortunately, perception is only a part of the problem. The structural mess that has accumulated over decades will not be disassembled easily or quickly, so the stagnation could linger. I don't think many see Romney as the reformer, but rather just putting the brakes on high speed travel in the wrong direction.
There are things out there that could save our ass if they were allowed to. The possibility of cheap abundant domestic energy is one of a few possible game changers in the battle between us and our future of malaise.
Saint Croix,
1. Stop asking for racial information on the census.
2. Stop asking for racial information on the job application.
3. Stop asking for racial information on the college application.
4. Stop asking for racial information in the polling data.
Yes, all four of these would be a big help.
It continues to amaze me how people who would argue passionately in one context that there is no such thing as "race," and that it's an unscientific concept, will go on in another context to say that we nonetheless need to slice and dice and categorize and put selective thumbs on the scale on the basis of this nonexistent thing.
To take but a small example: I once got into an online argument with someone who said baseball was a racist sport, because there were so few black players. I mentioned a half dozen of the then-top players, all of whom were immigrants from points south, and he retorted, "They aren't Black; they're Hispanic." To which I said, "I suppose then that if they were pulled over in a posh neighborhood, it would be for "Driving While Hispanic?"
Dude with Black father and white mother is Black. Mother of other dude, with Black father and Peruvian mother, is "mestizo." Her son is a "white Hispanic." (You can see how this happened, right? Someone named "George Zimmerman" couldn't possibly be Hispanic. Hispanics are supposed to have names like Rodriguez and Jiminez and stuff like that, all the better to categorize them with. You'd think that after Bill Richardson the press would've gotten wise to this.)
I concur with Bagho20--many of our economic problems are structural as we change from a human based manufacturing system to a robotic based manufacturing system--that structural change will affect low income workers primarily. I do believe that if Romney can relieve the economic uncertainty because of excessive regulation, we will see an immediate upturn in business confidence--but given the other economic structural issues, recovery will be slower than many hope for. Another thing that Mr Romney can do is increase domestic energy production thru fracking and more oil exploration. And with any luck given Mr Romney's election the Bush tax cuts will remain in effect--Only a fool (that would be the incumbent) advocates raising taxes in a recession. If the last three years show anything, it is the impotence of Keynesian economic solutions to fix the problem. (Professor Krugman notwithstanding)
"Every single one of the "scandals" you listed don't mean anything to the minorities, they are more concerned with keeping a roof over their heads and their wages from declining or stagnating further."
No mention of literacy. The TV they watch has little in the way of truthful information. If they were really worried about the economy, Obama would be in worse trouble.
Even the welfare state is toppling. I wonder how many of the recipients realize this ?
Again Synova and bagoh with sanity and reason. Awesome. Thanks.
And when Bagoh makes a remark that is right in line with that philosophy you find it insulting and condescending.
Hello?
It is. It's insulting beyond just about anything.
So if we agree then what's the point? He seemed to be defending it, though. If he didn't and was being sarcastic, he could have cleared that up and any point. He didn't. But you seemed to approach this too seriously to take what you said as a playful, and easily misconstrued, defense of any objectionable phenomenon.
But it's not the *right* insisting on it. It's the left. We're supposed to wallow in this thing that's true. And it is true.
The left insists on acknowledging it, not wallowing in it. Why do conservatives not understand the difference? Are they supposed to get us to acknowledge their own supposed perfection, first? That's nonsensical. Perfection is not the first step on the way to improvement.
But we're supposed to wallow in it and somehow, magically, racial relations will improve. Somehow by emphasizing division, insisting on and strengthening division, things will improve.
Encouraging division is beside the point. The issue we take is with a defense of arbitrary privilege. That motivation is non-negotiable. It's just about as clear a starting point in the debate/argument as it gets.
Why is it so easy to see the hurtfulness of it when it's words in the mouth of the other side, and so impossible to see when it's words in your own?
I don't know. Haven't enough people written about and explored this?
But my point is, why do you think the person enjoying and defending arbitrary disparities and privileges is less likely to need to be taken to task on seeing and accounting for another's pain? If anything, they're more likely to need that. How difficult is that to see? The luckier person is the one who needs apologies? What a crock.
"If the last three years show anything, it is the impotence of Keynesian economic solutions to fix the problem. (Professor Krugman notwithstanding)"
It's not that the Viagra I made from aspirin and grape soda doesn't work, it's just that you need to take a lot more of it - a lot more. Oh, and BTW, I don't think you ever paid me for the last batch I gave you.
garage mahal said...
My family dropped bombs on Nazis. How bout yours?
And you subscribe to Stalin's economic philosophy.
Bagh02--no wonder my lady was a bit disappointed :) Check is in the mail.
"The issue we take is with a defense of arbitrary privilege."
That is exactly the issue. Privilege, (if you mean reward) should come when it's earned.
Allie, I agree it's unlikely Romney will swing enough of those voters to make a difference-- but it's not impossible. And I agree those Obama scandals are irrelevant to those voters' primary (economic) concerns-- that's why I left them to one side-- but they might soften those voters' support for Obama.
In any case, I think it's important that Romney make the economic case to those voters, IMO it's both the right and politically smart thing to do, regardless of how many votes he swings in this election. Romney is explicitly pitching his campaign to all Americans, envisioning a presidency that works on behalf of all Americans (including those who don't vote for him).
In contrast to a presidency that has rhetorically and in effect cast half the country as the "other" (enemies, greedy millionaires and billionaires, racists & cowards, Tea Party terrorists, bigots and misogynists, etc.).
One campaign is predicated on fomenting and exacerbating division (starting with class warfare and war on women and ff.), the other is not. Making a substantive case on the economy to black and hispanic voters (and women and youth and everyone else) would be part of that.
"The issue we take is with a defense of arbitrary privilege."
That is exactly the issue. Privilege, (if you mean reward) should come when it's earned.
So you think that earnings are arbitrary and rewards should exist whether or not they worked for. I don't. Yes, you have indeed clarified this issue. I don't think you did so in a way that works for you, though.
But if you just messed up and forgot about the meaning of the word "arbitrary", you might want to say so now. Either that, or fess up to possibly yet another Orwellian attempt to re-purpose the English language.
I don't know Synova. It seems that all that tutoring isn't gonna help.
Is someone gonna call a white guy inauthentic, or a traitor to his race, or some other such disfranchising, racist, debilitating crap? Nope. I can vote for Wesley Snipes and other white people just think I'm enlightened.
I bet any black guy who admitted voting for McCain hasn't gotten invited back to dinner since. He's considered a traitor, and not only to most of his black friends, but the white liberals who imagine themselves equality warriors as they shun the uppity black guy.
I didn't ignore or forget the word arbitrary. Arbitrary implies unearned.
This election is an unusually clear choice between two ideologies and world views, but the candidates both have proven themselves unreliable to their bases.
Because of that unreliability, I think this election is going to be an even clearer choice. People can choose the ideology they believe works without having to pick someone who is a scary representative of it. Except for Crack MC. Romney gives him nightmares.
"The left insists on acknowledging it, not wallowing in it. Why do conservatives not understand the difference? Are they supposed to get us to acknowledge their own supposed perfection, first?"
Because there is no step number two.
Did you read the subject thread the other day on apologizing for being white?
It really does come across as self-congratulatory smugness. "Look how moral I am, how wonderful I am, as I admit that life favors me above all others."
That's acknowledging it.
Oh, it's NICE to be white.
And we're all supposed to get out a wet noodle and whip ourselves for our sins, none that we *committed* mind you, but the sin of being born pale.
Because doing so makes us not only privileged and favored but morally better people, too.
I don't know how it's possible to get around the insult in that. It's not less insulting and smug when the left does it, insists on it. Demand that everyone admit that life favors them, and when someone does that, well, it's not quite so pretty then is it.
The whole *thing* is wrong on the fundamental level of its assumptions.
The assumptions of "white privilege" theory are so flawed that it's not possible to present that step number two, how the first utter need for individual white people to admit that white people are racist because of the math and not their attitudes or actions, that somehow leads to "better" instead of "worse."
Racial division can not be weakened by strengthening it.
How does that work?
What you see as denial, I see as moving forward. We weaken racial division by behaving as if racial division is unimportant. We gain equality by treating people as equal.
wyo sis,
There is something that you must know about Ratmo.
English is his second language. Gibberish is his first.
Lol. Mitt Romney would be an obvious phony even if there were no such thing as race and we all had purple-color skin. How ridiculous it is to not see that. Someone who will say anything need not rely on ideas (about artificial OR natural processes) to be transparently unworthy of leadership.
But that's the kind of guy you need nowadays and Mitt Romney's your man. Just make sure you know which side of his mouth he's vomiting sound bites out of and which side is voraciously engorging itself on outsourced labor revenues. They change daily.
In which a new generation learns the joy of scroll
Shhhhhh. Hush Everybody, I think this is a solemn moment.
Flitter, dink, flitter, dink, disappear
bagoh20: whuwhuzat?
apparently you've been knighted
" Someone who will say anything need not rely on ideas (about artificial OR natural processes) to be transparently unworthy of leadership." damn--I thought this might be a condemnation of the incumbent! alas not so--I think the WaPo, no bastion of conservatism, pretty well destroyed the outsourcing meme. But when memes are all you have, deploy them. Mr Obama's latest ad re "outsourcing" earned him 4 pinnochios from the WAPO.
Did you read the subject thread the other day on apologizing for being white?
No. Believe it or not I actually try to stay away from this blog. Especially when the dominatrix goes into flagellation mode.
And we're all supposed to get out a wet noodle and whip ourselves for our sins, none that we *committed* mind you, but the sin of being born pale.
Need I say more?
Because doing so makes us not only privileged and favored but morally better people, too.
Need you?
I don't know how it's possible to get around the insult in that. It's not less insulting and smug when the left does it, insists on it. Demand that everyone admit that life favors them, and when someone does that, well, it's not quite so pretty then is it.
Stop telling me to accept the implications of your own erroneous conclusion.
The whole point is refusing to engage in a bullshit self-praise regarding arbitrary advantages. If you have an arbitrary advantage, you are lucky in that regard, by definition. So enjoy. Woot. But don't expect me to build a monument or a political movement in homage to your own luck. That's just freakish. Circus shows were made around people lucky enough to fashion a career out of strange physical deformities, too. Again, woot.
The whole *thing* is wrong on the fundamental level of its assumptions.
The assumptions of "white privilege" theory are so flawed
Not theory. Reality. You can test it out sometime. If you subscribed to empiric reality.
...that it's not possible to present that step number two, how the first utter need for individual white people to admit that white people are racist...
They don't need to. They aren't racist to a person. But they benefit from it. Some are more gracious about acknowledging that than others, though. And some are just pigs.
...because of the math and not their attitudes or actions, that somehow leads to "better" instead of "worse."...
This is stupid. Just because math gives a comparative advantage to racists among one side doesn't mean that one sides racists are better people. You are committing the fallacy of division and ascribing properties of a group to its members.
Racial division can not be weakened by strengthening it.
How does that work?
I don't know. Who here is strengthening racial division?
What you see as denial, I see as moving forward.
This is not, and never has been the case in any thinking society. And funny how you don't encourage Israelis to forget about the Holocaust when you go on and on about Iran...
The rest of what you say is just a sloppy attempt to equate the acts of individuals with the acts of entire groups. To say so is as stupid as saying that individual European families who saved individuals from genocide in WWII vindicated the entire society of collaborators. Stupid. Untrue. Immoral.
And anti-individual responsibility.
And I do have to plead ignorance to what "artifical OR natural processes are." I would genuinely appreciate some examples--I can, for example, see evolution as a natural process along with many of the laws of physics and thermodynamics. I can see "artificial processes" as bureaucratic norms and behaviors, legal systems and others--are those the types of things to which you refer? And if so, which of these processes, either artificial or natural, is Mr Romney guilty of ignorance? A parenthetical insertion sheds little light on what you mean.
Ritmo, should black voters get two votes? Would that equalize us?
How about we give the black voter 10 votes, the gay voter 9 votes, the hispanic voter 4 votes? And since woman has been oppressed everywhere throughout history, she gets 20 votes. And we can strip the white males of any voting authority. Or maybe give them 1 vote, what the hell.
What say you, Ritmo? No, wait, I believe you've already hit your quota of white speaking privileges for today.
So if whites vote for Romney 60-40, what percentage of black votes does Obama need?
You can speak again next week.
The assumptions of "white privilege" theory are so flawed
Not theory. Reality. You can test it out sometime. If you subscribed to empiric reality.
---------------
Please list your empirical proof of white priviledge.
This should be funny.
"So if whites vote for Romney 60-40, what percentage of black votes does Obama need?" given the electoral college system, this question can only be answered in a state by state analysis, I suspect.
Saint Croix has obviously run out of good ideas and is now equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome (1 person 1 vote is equal opportunity).
As for commenting quotas, I should go by the Citizens United precedent and claim that my wealth entitles me to more speech.
I dont personally believe that equality of opportunity equals equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity, as Ritmo accurate points out is in part "one man-one vote." But IMO thats a political construct and an important one that the government needs to support. Equality of outcome, however, again IMO, is determined in large part by free market forces, personal education, drive and ambition. And in that area the government should not intervene.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Did you read the subject thread the other day on apologizing for being white?
No. Believe it or not I actually try to stay away from this blog. Especially when the dominatrix goes into flagellation mode.
And Oop says it's my weird fantasy.
PS I think Ritmo and Hatman have some time/space warp going.
Notice how much alike they sound?
Too bad neither has anything valuable to say.
Or better yet, cite these mythical "Jobs Bills" that the Republicans proposed that were vetoed and what the legislation entailed.
There were certainly jobs bills in Wisconsin (the mining bill) that the Democrats unanimously voted against.
Nothing like trying to get a taxicab
Next thing I'll hear that stereotypes don't exist. From someone who thinks in stereotypes.
The concept of earning respect, rewards, privilege, consideration, worth, self-esteem is an American value. It's virtually woven into the fabric of American life. When that concept is abandoned the fabric gets thin indeed. It can only be mended when meritocracy returns.
If I'm presented with a person who's earned my respect I vote for them. In lieu of that I vote for the person who I respect most of the two choices. If that is white privilege then everyone should have it and it should be American privilege.
I fail to see how scrabbling around for moral superiority without acknowledging human dignity independent of color or race gets us where we need to go.
Stereotypes exist. Racism exists. 60 or so years of misdirection, enabling, "studies", calling it falsely, drumming guilt into people, attempting to cure it with reparations, politically motivated exploitation and screaming in rage haven't solved the problem. Maybe it's time to try something new.
One thing I'm grateful for and a little proud of personally is that when someone sees me walking down the street, they can't be sure of how I would vote about anything. That should be a goal of people - something to teach your children to strive for.
garage mahal said...
My family dropped bombs on Nazis. How bout yours?
Can you possibly be more juvenile?
What a schmuck.
That should be a goal of people - something to teach your children to strive for.
Definitely. Appearances are not the same as realities. Maybe Macchiavelli's primary observation can be overcome.
And I can't even be sure of which mustache style Bag O' will employ from avatar to avatar!
I kid! I kid!
Saint Croix has obviously run out of good ideas and is now equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome (1 person 1 vote is equal opportunity).
Ritmo! "Equal opportunity" is a right-wing charade. Don't you know that?
Lamest Marxist ever. Go back to your country club. Next you'll be joining Kiwanis and starting your own business. Hiring people without regard to their skin color. "Equal opportunity!"
You are officially an embarrassment to the left.
Keep 'em guessing. Good words to live by.
"And I can't even be sure of which mustache style Bag O' will employ from avatar to avatar!"
The one you see is just a disguise that covers my little Hitler one, but you knew that already.
Allie: Clint Eastwood: A man has to know his limitations--also good words to live by.
And BTW how is the daughter doing--hope she is safe.
Just read this thread top to bottom. I second Pogo's comment, Bagoh2O @ 11:23 AM wins the thread.
Yee Gawd. Way back at 11:00 AM ORS infers a plot to reduce voter rolls ...e.g., requiring photo ID to vote, never mind you need just such photo ID to listen to Obama speak at a rally. Holder hasn't commented, yet.
Is nothing consistent except blarney on the Democratic plate?
One thing I'm grateful for and a little proud of personally is that when someone sees me walking down the street, they can't be sure of how I would vote about anything.
Heh. In my case, they're sure to guess wrong.
Thanks for asking Roger, she's safe, bored inbetween very busy, I'd rather she was bored.
I realize my own limitations, doesn't mean I don't strive, another raison d'entre, or is it être?
Yee Gawd. Way back at 11:00 AM ORS infers a plot to reduce voter rolls ...e.g., requiring photo ID to vote, never mind you need just such photo ID to listen to Obama speak at a rally. Holder hasn't commented, yet.
Yes. Nevermind that indeed. In what sense is the security concerns of seeing the president in person equivalent to the security concern of some sort of physical harm that a voter will exact on a voting booth?
And you place yourself in a position to judge the quality of comments and comment threads. Shame on you! Lol.
Ritmo is a Troll. His aim is to derail the topic by getting people to argue superfluous points, side tracking and to try to get people to defend themselves against distortions of what they actually said, while at the same time moving the goal posts.
It is a game. Don't play it.
OK, gonna stick my neck out, Ritmo isn't a troll.
Stick away. He is a classic troll. He never argues in good faith or actually sticks to the topic. His goal is to see how far from the actual topic he can steer the thread. How long he can keep angling for suckers to argue with him.
Troll.
OK, gonna stick my neck out, Ritmo isn't a troll. I think he's trying to get people to see an issue from a different perspective. I am guessing, but I don't think he expects anyone to agree with him, nor is he concerned about changing anyone's mind. That doesn't make someone a troll, I hate that word, used wayyyy to much on this forum.
Isn't there value in differing opinions anymore? I suspect Althouse appreciates dissenting voices. After all echo chambers are soooo boring, no?
Sorry DBQ, our comments are out of order now.
way back in the archives, I believe that Ritmo, in which ever incarnation, said explicity his actions were trollish--my words, not his, but whatever his words were, his purpose was to disrupt and deflect--If I am wrong on this point, I will apologize forthwith.
Now I dont have a problem with trolls--the do engender hits.
O Ritmo Segundo,
As for commenting quotas, I should go by the Citizens United precedent and claim that my wealth entitles me to more speech.
I think you mean Buckley v. Valeo.
I suspect Althouse appreciates dissenting voices.
That she does. But Ritmo dissents for reasons which (if he gives any at all) do not contribute to the discussion.
He's disruptive to the discourse.
(I think he's on assignment.)
I just recently read a biography of Mickey Mantle. Throughout his life, he was always being compared to Willie Mays. Except among Yankee fans, the comparisons were generally unflattering to Mantle. Mantle himself said that, although he, Mantle, could hit the ball further, Mays was the better overall player. It became settled wisdom to agree with Mantle's observation and claim that Mays was undervalued because of his race....Mantle's biographer made some revisionist claims. Using the Moneyball statistics that are now in vogue, she discovered that Mantle was, by far, the more productive of the two players......So there's this paradox: Mantle was judged to have been overestimated because of his race that he was, in fact, underestimated and vice versa with Willie Mays. I agree that race distorts our vision, but it happens not always in ways that we expect.
I am so sick of race talk.
Oh bagho! Oh Pogo!
O Lorem ipsum!
I will never look at Ritmo's mostly unread comments again.
There's no there there, just a lot of filler, taking up space.
Jay said...
PS: 60 working days is 12 weeks.
24x7, we never close!
- Horatio Cane
Roger, if you (or the others) can't judge for yourself what constitutes a decent opposing argument in your own mind, then there's not much point in bothering to make one. Same goes for Dust Buster Queen, who said exactly the opposite of me years back as what she just said now. (I suspect she's just peeved about the autism comments).
As for this:
Oh bagho! Oh Pogo!
O Lorem ipsum!
O Sweet orgasm!
The point is, decent reasoning is just not something the cons here respect. If it were, they'd refer to any liberal polemicist whose arguments they find merit in. A single one. Anyone who doesn't share their ideology but who happens to argue well. Yeah, I'm still holding out for that one.
But since they don't, we know who's just playing team politics here. They are ideologues to the extreme, though, so nothing else matters.
The only thing they respect is power, and hence this obsession with identities over arguments. (cf. Who is this Ritmo person and what does he really believe? What is his true aim?)
But they still want you to believe they see beyond group identities! Really, they do! Smearing individual identities and motivations is their only modus operandi (except for Synova, the last truly decent one left standing), but we should take it on faith that they don't group people into different categories and judge accordingly.
What a crock.
He's disruptive to the discourse.
Translation: He's disruptive to the robotic mindmeld that we should do our utmost to reinforce.
ORS ... In what sense is the security concerns of seeing the president in person equivalent to the security concern of some sort of physical harm that a voter will exact on a voting booth?
Perfect example of deflection. One use for photo ID is protection of persons. Another use, equally valid, is protection of the integrity of a ballot.
I live in a minority immigrant neighborhood and, voilà', even the limited English speakers all have photo ID. The legal ones even have green cards and passports. Go figure.
Since I apparently won't have to show photo ID, when asked at my precinct, I shall therefore be allowed to vote once as me, and once again as a neighbor, or the recently deceased a few times ... there-by canceling your vote. No worries eh? Nothing to protect, move along now...
How long he can keep angling for suckers to argue with him.
I agree: Most of the people in this forum are suckers.
That said, I don't see what faith has to do with an argument. An argument either makes sense or it doesn't. If you think it doesn't, you argue further as to why it doesn't. And if you can't do that, then yes, you're probably better off just making up things to believe in. Have faith and reason less. By all means.
Just be honest and admit that's what you're doing, though. That's all I ask.
Perfect example of deflection.
Oh, you think so?
Show me any evidence of significant voter fraud in recent years, other than the fraud of awarding faulty ballot-counting machine contracts based on political patronage or obviously conflicted interests.
It is not convincing to blindly assert that Republicans don't want to restrict the vote among their opponents' constituents. Every political act in office they've carried out so far suggests that they're after one thing: Enhanced power and patronage. There are simply no more principles or concern for other constituencies left.
ORS ...Just be honest and admit that's what you're doing, though.
Sure. Right after you admit your stock in discussion is rhetoric, and spurious ad hominems,(suckers?)not dialectic. Logical fallacy suits you.
Adios. I've got pigeons to go watch poop.
The Ratmo virus method of infection:
1. Inserts itself into thread with much gibberish.
2. Embeds a provocative statement into further gibberish--almost always off topic.
3. Is engaged by either newbies or the persistent.
4. Much gibberish and deflection ensues.
5. The virus goes ad hom.
6. More gibberish, followed by false remission.
7. Virus returns in modestly chastened and reasonable mode.
8. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Logical fallacy suits you.
It certainly suits me to see my opponents never failing to engage it.
;-)
I live in California-- a real "granola bowl"--fruits nuts and flakes. No Republican candidate bothers to spend much time in the most populous state in the nation. They know they're going to get zero, zip and nada in the Electoral College out of California. But since the split between parties here is about 60-40, it means that millions--and I mean millions--of California folks who vote Republican don't have a say in the Presidential election.
That said I'm not complaining. The rules of the game and the Electoral College are well known in advance. Now Dems keep whining about "stolen elections" in Florida (where Dubya kept winning no matter how the votes were recounted.) But if Al Gore had spent less worrying about satisfying his Second Chakra--and more time campaigning in and winning his "home" state of Tennesee, Al Gore would have been President of the United States.
It's a simple board game--the rules aren't hard to understand and you play it as it lays. Dubya lost New Mexico in 2000 by something like 43 votes in the entire state.
I expect the white margin to keep increasing with each Black flash mob, black on white bus beating, and other assorted black on white crime splashed on youtube.
As the country becomes increasingly non-white, the Republican party is going to have to start winning more of these non-white people or else become a defacto white-only party and start winning 70+ percent of the whites.
That's only the case if we devolve even further into racial politics. Because, on the other hand, the Republican party can continue to win if enough people -- of any race -- agree that less government interference in our lives is preferable. You are assuming that all Latinos and all blacks (I am assuming you're ignoring Asians as most liberals do -- that chubby Korean comedy chick aside) will reject Republicans.
That's a currently-stylish belief. One might call it the conventional wisdom. It isn't necessarily true, though.
One last question:
If y'all are defining a troll as someone who doesn't believe what he says, will say one thing and do another, believe one thing one minute but not the next, whose aim is not to further enlightened discussion, but rather to derail, disrupt and deflect, then...
Why would any of you vote for Mitt Romney?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
I agree: Most of the people in this forum are suckers.
You're a beclowning idiot.
PS: In both federal elections held in Georgia since its voter ID became effective, the increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters dwarfed the increase in turnout of white voters.
Now go change the subject yet again imbecile.
Craig
You make some good points.
It will probably turn out exactly the way you say. People will see the results of liberal policies and vote to reverse them.
I just hope it happens in time. The point that a conservative administration could turn the economy around is dependent on people being willing to defer economic wants now in the expectation that a better economy will increase their chances of a better future. That's a hard sell to the instant gratification crowd, but the up by the bootstraps crowd could make it work. Those two schools of thought aren't race based. It's more of a culture issue.
*** I *** dinna talk about it with nearly such specificity. Or even at all.
The people who made it this way are the people obsessed with how many pegs of given colors fit given slots. Go take it up with them.
The Democratic party has won the white vote only once in the last 16 Presidential elections. When will Obama start reaching out to white people and deal with their concerns?
The "white margin" argument appears to rely on the assumption that everyone who isn't white will automatically vote for Obama.
That seems... odd.
I wonder how white Hispanics like George Zimmerman will vote.
A. Shmendrik said...
Jay said...
PS: 60 working days is 12 weeks.
24x7, we never close!
- Horatio Cane
When was the last time the Republicans had a filibuster proof senate? Or a veto proof congress?
As for Ritmo, he is like the dog who sees his reflection in the mirror and barks because he can't recognize himself.
As for white privilege, seriously who even cares anymore about being called a racist anymore. If whites are going to do the time, they might as well do the crime. The next white president and congress might as well go for broke, pass a tough whites only immigration law with strict enforcement (but allow honorary whites in such as Asians and well educated and monied Negros and Hispanics).
Obama is the jump-the-shark moment for the race industry. Clearly if he wasn't black he would have never been elected to the Senate, never mind to the Presidency.
Post a Comment