Originally posted by Saphronia
Vagabond says... "1. I'm not a Republican. "
Then why are you spouting their tired rhetoric?
What tired rhetoric is that? You mean calling the Republican Party "the party of Lincoln"? re-read the thread- I didn't say it. You mean suggesting
that Condie Rice and Colin Powell are indicators that the Republican party favors African-Americans more than the Dems? re-read the thread- I didn't
What I said is that African-Americans should make the Democrats earn their vote by making examples out of Democrats who have not adequately
represented them, and I did not say that this meant defecting to the Republican party necessarily- I distinctly raised the idea of a black political
party or support for third parties. That's not Republican Rhetoric.
Last time I checked it was Eldridge Cleaver who had the idea of running for President with the Peace and Freedom Party.
This is nothing more than right wing propaganda.
(Referring to my assertion that the Democrats have become too comfortable with the expectation of black support and are not working as hard for
African Americans as they would be forced to if those votes were made contingent upon results.)
The very idea is ridiculous, but they have said it enough that it has stuck in your head. Now, you actually believe that our concerns won't be
addressed because we support democrats.
Black people as a whole don't need to vote for a Republican to get the politicans to listen to their concerns.
Then don't vote Republican. Vote for a third party. Start your own party. The bottom line is that you haven't introduced any evidence to the effect
that the Democratic Party has worked hard for the interests of African Americans. They aren't doing that much because they know they've got your
vote, and you're standing here making my case.
What are the Democrats making noise about, hmm? I don't mean just Charles Rangel- his party is not behind him.
(The man has been in congress for 35 years, he's highly visible, he's a decorated veteran, and yet I don't see him being made a whip, I don't see
him on the Rule Committee, I don't see his seniority being acknowledged all that much. You can hardly argue that it's just because Way and Means is
where he naturally belongs, although it does suit him, because they put slaughter, 18 years his junior in congress, on the extremely powerful rules
committee, when she's in it for the environment and local issues.)
Where are the dems on reparations? I'm not saying I believe in it, but I've taken note that many African Americans do, and I don't know for sure
where the dems are on the issue because I don't seem them trying to do anything about it.
What does the Democratic party plan to do about Gratz v. Bollinger? Sure, Grutter v. Bollinger said that universities could use some kind of
non-descript affirmative action, but on the very same day they announced that you can't actually give minorities a point bonus in admission
considerations. So sure, they can do it, as long as they don't have any way of doing it. I don't hear a plan for dealing with that from the Dems,
but I bet I would if African Americans had demanded of their party "come up with a sollution for the Gratz decision or stand by to see a third party
take another congressional seat away from you".
Speaking of which, I'd be curious to hear what you think about John Roberts. Call me curious.
Tis like folk think we are unable to weigh an issue and pick the candidate that is closest to our beliefs. Did you ever stop to think maybe
our concerns are being addressed the same as everybody else in this country, through the democratic process?
Um... nobody's concerns are being addressed through the democratic process in this country. That's a big part of why I'm not a Republican. The two
major parties have their voting blocs and don't have to do much for them, so they don't.
It's not that you're unable to pick a candidate intelligently, it's just that there are many cases where there is no candidate who comes anywhere
close to being an intelligent choice. I'm not saying that you've forsaken the right choice because you're ignorant. I'm saying that in cases where
there is no right choice you haven't demanded change, and that is pretty ignorant. You stand here making my case for me, defending the Democratic
party tooth and nail, when they've been less than stellar in defending you.
You can believe whatever you want because you have a right to your opinion, but to close your mind to the fact that your views place black people on
the level of children is truly sad.
I don't do that to the black people any more than I do to every other partisan group in America. Your problem is that you can't stand to think that
maybe part of your problem is coming from within rather than from without.
It's simple: Is the Democratic Party perfect for minorities, or could they do better?
If they could do better, do you think they'll ever do better on their own, or will you have to motivate them to do better?
Many Americans of all groups, whatever their primary political interest may be, have pledged themselves to one of the two major parties because that
party is closer to their views than the other, but not near as close as they'd like it to be. It never even occurs to them that they could force the
parties to come around closer to their point of view if they'd stand together behind an alternative candidate once in a while to make a show of
Ross Perot is a perfect example. Bush 41 was not doing enough domestically. When Conservatives fired a shot across the Republican party's bow by
embracing a third-party conservative who was more focused on the domestic issues which they cared about more than the gulf, the Republican Party
responded with the Contract with America. Whether or not you agree with those initiatives is besides the point. Conservatives made an example out of
Bush 41 and their party responded. The only problem is that they didn't persist- the party has fallen again. I think we should have made an example
out of Bush 43 in his second election, or at the very least out of some of the party leadership in congress, to remind the party that we want a strong
domestic agenda too, and that winning wars isn't enough to make us rally behind a president.
We are individuals that don't need a leader to hold our hand at the polls. We can and will vote for whoever we choose.
A lot of good it's done you. You're not JUST individuals. You are individuals in a community of likeminded individuals; no two people are perfectly
the same in their views, but you can dang well be close enough to unite. Focused in one direction of your collective choosing, you command respect and
have considerable authority. Seeing yourselves only as individuals, you can be herded.
No. That is a form of segregation. Tis like saying because someone is white they won't vote the right way on issues that effect people of
Wrong. I'm not saying you have to be exclusive. I'm saying that minorities (and implicitly anyone who is similarly interested in the issues
affecting people of color) can't be assured of their parties support unless they force a compromise whereby the party must support them on that issue
in order to retain the support of minority interests on other issues.
I've got news for you, the political process is a well-regulated civil war. Conflicting interests are battling for recognition, and none of them have
wide enough support to win on their own. The only way to win is to barter your way into a coalition that will sufficiently respect your agenda, but
you can never forget that there is no majority within the coalition- it's a wide array of allied interests, and from time to time a particular set of
interests may find itself ignored and have to rock the boat, or find itself out of the game.
I'm not going to vote for someone so that I can increase the "voting power" of black people. This is another ridiculous notion that is
borderline offensive and smells republican.
If reality offends you, then be offended. If you don't want the strength to achieve the things that are important to you, then fine, I'm wasting my
time explaining all of this. Go ahead, vote for one party every year, no matter how little they do for you.
It's hardly Republican though. People who label themselves Republican are making the same ridiculous mistake that you are. They're making themselves
the pawns of an aloof good-ol' boys club that is more than happy to pay them lipservice every election to get them riled up, but will rarely ever dig
in and fight for the things that matter to the voters.
IF this country has truly changed why should it matter what the color my representatives skin is?
1. This country hasn't changed. Look around.
2. It's not skin color I'm talking about. It's the interests of a group of people. I don't care if you elect a 6'1" blone haired, blue eyed
German as long as he does the things you elect him to do.
Why should it matter what color I am when I enter the voting booth. I'll still be pro-choice, anti-war, and anti-capital
My point exactly- Issues. One of the most liberal states in the union just put a man to death a couple weeks ago- I suspect you're aware. A man who
is not expected to be friendly to Roe v Wade was confirmed with the support of half the Democrats in the Senate.
Show me a republican that believes the way I do, and a democrat that that doesn't.
Nobody's telling you to vote Republican. Vote for a third party who embraces your values more closely, and even then I'm not saying to do that IF
the particular candidate you have available from the Dems already represents your views. The fact of the matter is though that you've got Democrats
who helped take us to war, you've got democrats who voted for John Roberts, you've got democrats who aren't doing anything serious to stop the war
because using the war to make Bush look bad is way better in their eyes than actually stopping the war. The Democrats aren't the ones who pushed
through an amendment to enforce FM 34-52 on the CIA.
What I'm saying is that you give lipservice to choosing your candidate on his individual virtues, but then you go right back to defending the party
at all costs. You're against the idea of gaining greater influence for your interests in that party, you're against going to a third party when they
represent you better than Democrats, even in cases where together you could help the third party win.
You are misunderstanding me...your whole post assumed that ALL black people that vote democrat are ill-informed voters
Incorrect. That's your problem. You'd be right if you'd characterized my statement as "all black people who vote democrat inspite of their
interests are ill-informed voters", or better yet "ALL PEOPLE who vote FOR ANY PARTY in spite of their interests are ill-informed voters". For
example: If a Christian were to line up on the Republican side behind Rudy Gulliani they'd have to be an ignoramus, unless they had made a conscious
decision that other factors in Gulliani's position were more important that 2 failed marriages (one incestuous) and his pro-choice stance. It's not
strictly aimed at blacks.
I simply assert that one who chooses a party over a candidate or over the best interest of the issues he considers most important is ignorant. Can you
honest quarrel with that, or is this simply a product of your pathological need to see oppressive racism around every corner?