"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Phoenix Dark]

like the civil rights act oh wait

(skip to after 2 minutes where he gets the chance to speak)


I dont see what is wrong with what he has said. Equality comes from voluntary acceptance of each other like in sports.  When you force equality it doesnt work that well.  People in America are far more racist than people in Australia or Europe.  He also said he woudl have gotten rid of those laws that say black peopel cannot use government benches or taps.  He just doesnt agree tht people with private property shouldnt be allowed to discriminate.  When people discriminate with private property people who dont like discrimination wiill discriminate againt them and they will lose business.

I don't know where to start

[Stoney Mason]

Well its going to be Romney with the nomination. Not my ideal choice since I actually think people are dumb enough to vote for that dude but what ever.

I do find it amusing that established conservative figures are having such a hard time beating Ron Paul. Think about that for a second and realize how messed up that is.

Hard time my ass.  There are about 20-23% of the electorate that will bother showing up for a primary that will vote for Paul.  He's not gonna gain any more no matter who drops out because he's already at his ceiling, which consists of the following:  libertarians, stupid young people, and Glenn Greenwald.  That's it.  Ron Paul will never win anything.

That's not what I'm saying. The people who show up for any primary are of course generally the cranks but they've always been the cranks. Those people still tended to vote for whoever the Limbaugh's or the Fox News talking heads told them to vote for. For some reason that isn't happening as much. Because the party is very fragmented.

[benjipwns]

That's not what I'm saying. The people who show up for any primary are of course generally the cranks but they've always been the cranks. Those people still tended to vote for whoever the Limbaugh's or the Fox News talking heads told them to vote for. For some reason that isn't happening as much. Because the party is very fragmented.

I'm not sure they really have all that much power within the factions of the Republican Party. Limbaugh and Fox for example were heavily for Rudy and despised McCain as a RINO but that didn't do much in the primaries.

That said, Limbaugh, etc. haven't really picked a candidate either. They've flit from candidate to candidate just like the polls did. Fox was quite pro-Perry until he crumbled and they eventually latched onto Santorum. Limbaugh seemed on board with Newt but never too much and now he's all over the place. There was lots of Cain love before he ditched.

Like most of the rest of the Republican Party they seem to only agree on two things: Romney is probably the nominee (it is HIS turn after all) so don't get too rough with him, and Ron Paul wants to let the Muslims kill us all. There's no real unifying candidate like a George W. Bush.

[Stoney Mason]

Fair enough.

[TakingBackSunday]

Your parents pay for all your shit too, loser.

 

My parents pay my rent for now and that's about it.

[benjipwns]

Actually, if there was a unity candidate, it probably was Cain.

If you assume there's like four major factions (not including the overlap) in the Republicans, the religious right, the business/establishment types, the war war war people and the libertarian/paleos. The latter are obviously voting for Paul, the business guys are in with Romney, and the religious were backing Perry/Bachmann (and now Santorum) and everyone but Paul and Huntsman are for war. Cain was probably acceptable to the first three factions just enough, especially with his CEO background, religious stories about his cancer, and "I dunno, ask the experts!" dodge of stuff, to where he could have been their second choices and thus win. Perry was basically the same "acceptable" candidate before he entered the race and people got to see him in the debates. I think Newt's surge was in part of his debate performances making him seem like that non-Romney second choice that was just acceptable enough in all three factions until everyone realized they were talking about Newt fucking Gingrich.

The Democrats had similar issues in 1968 and 1972 (and to a lesser extent 1984 and 1988) with their factions entrenching and struggling to find who could be that unifying candidate.

Republicans will get in line and support/vote Romney in the general though just as they did McCain. Doubtful that Obama Republicans will be like Nixon or Reagan Democrats.

[Mandark]

Yeah, I don't think we'll see as many people splitting the ticket now that the parties are more cohesive nationally.

Though if we're splitting the GOP into chunks, surely anti-immigration gets its own faction?

[benjipwns]

Ah yeah, that's a really good one.

[Human Snorenado]

Let's just be honest and call them what they are:  racists.

[benjipwns]

Or at least "nativists."

Actually, I like that better than anti-immigration as the name of the faction. That sort of Bill O'Reilly/Lou Dobbs style "we're losing American culture!" that isn't quite as religion focused as the religious right and really only seems to care about religion because it's "part of our culture."

[Human Snorenado]

Or we could quit trying to be polite and spare their feelings, and just call them racists.

[benjipwns]

I was trying to expand it outside their fear of the brown hordes to include the other things destroying our country like altering the Pledge, saying "Happy Holidays" and allowing smut on the TV.

[Damian79]

I don't know where to start

Yeah the last part is dumb in reference to what i said earlier in that post.  Still though do you believe that legislation makes people think differently of others?

[benjipwns]

 

[Stoney Mason]

I don't know where to start

Yeah the last part is dumb in reference to what i said earlier in that post.  Still though do you believe that legislation makes people think differently of others?

Yes. Legislating human rights and then enforcing that slowly over time and generations makes people less discriminatory. That can take generations and is a slow process of course. The problem with your argument is that is assumes though that the goal of legislation of civil rights issues is to immediately change the hearts and minds of people. It isn't. It's to guarantee rights and break down sanctioned discriminatory practices.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm kind of surprised GOPers are throwing the kitchen sink at Romney. Hillary threw some pretty nasty stuff at Obama after it was clear he was the de facto front runner, including the 3AM ad, but Perry and Gingrich are making quite an odd argument in a republican primary on this stuff; Gingrich sounds almost like Elizabeth Warren when slamming Romney on venture capitol.

[Stoney Mason]

Meh. I'm waiting for the Mormons are evil cultists stuff to arise again. That's prime South Carolina material there.

[Mandark]

I really think that written laws can shape norms over time (though they're usually the result of changing norms themselves, blah blah blah).  The slave code and later Jim Crow reinforced racism just as civil rights legislation made it taboo.

Not that the point of civil rights laws was to stop people from having racism in their hearts.  It was to let black folks get entry to mainstream American society, by making sure they had access to education, employment, public accommodations, legal representation, the ballot box, housing, etc.  Even if white people continued to be secret bigots, that's a pretty f'n big deal.

A lot of libertarians/Paul apologists talk about how racist businesses would eventually be at a competitive disadvantage (either through boycotts or through losing out on potential black customers and employees) and be forced to change by the market.  But there was a century after the Civil War and before the CRA and this didn't happen.  There was even roughly three decades after Reconstruction before Jim Crow laws started being passed, so you can't blame it on statism.

This always depresses me a bit.  I know that there's a temptation to spout off on subjects we're not that familiar with in order to buttress our own worldviews (I plead guilty), but America's struggles with institutional racism are recent and important enough that it feels like a disservice whenever they're used that way.

When you force equality it doesnt work that well.  People in America are far more racist than people in Australia or Europe.

Speaking of which, you clearly have no clue about racism in Europe/Australia or the attendant debates on hate speech laws.

[Cheebo]

What amazed me is how other than Bachman not a single candidate dropped out after Iowa or New Hampshire. The conservative base keeps giving 10%+ to 3-4 different candidates and Romney is sliding into the nomination without a single loss winning with 30%ish in each state. It's crazy. Why did no one really drop out after either? In 2008 all the Democrats dropped out other than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards after Iowa.

[AdmiralViscen]

like the civil rights act oh wait

(skip to after 2 minutes where he gets the chance to speak)


I dont see what is wrong with what he has said.  Equality comes from voluntary acceptance of each other like in sports.  When you force equality it doesnt work that well.  People in America are far more racist than people in Australia or Europe.  He also said he woudl have gotten rid of those laws that say black peopel cannot use government benches or taps.  He just doesnt agree tht people with private property shouldnt be allowed to discriminate.  When people discriminate with private property people who dont like discrimination wiill discriminate againt them and they will lose business.

What if Mississippi in the 1960s was a place where people who don't like non-racists stop shopping at stores that let black people in, and THOSE stores go out of business?

Answer damian

[Boogie]

People in America are far more racist than people in Australia or Europe.

Yeaah, except for the whole "the biggest war in human history started as a german social Darwinism project" thing.


See also:  the prevalence of far right-wing parties in Europe.  National front in France, the BNP in Britain, the Austrian Freedom Party under Haider, etc.  Or the Swiss referendum vote to ban the construction of minarets on mosques.  Or....

[Brehvolution]

Butt-hurt Bill O piece in the paper today:

"Late night liberals love laughing at republicans"

I know 'he mad' and all, but his dumb ass just doesn't get it. They show clips of repubs talking and laugh at how ridiculous it is. No need to take things out of context or distort it. They write the comedy themselves and want to be taken seriously. It's hilarious. Fox news could have the number 1 late night comedy show if they just recap their day.

[Mupepe]

On my way to work I tend to torture myself with a morning radio show of elderly right wing nonsense on a classic rock station.  This morning they drove me insane.

They went from calling for support of Ron Paul's ideas and railing against regulation to complaining that Democrats caused the financial meltdown... by removing regulation (Glass Steagall).  what what what!

If they're trolling me they're doing a damn good job of it. 

I also listened to them throw out "facts" that the amount of federal employees has tripled under Obama   

[AdmiralViscen]

On my way to work I tend to torture myself with a morning radio show of elderly right wing nonsense on a classic rock station.  This morning they drove me insane.

They went from calling for support of Ron Paul's ideas and railing against regulation to complaining that Democrats caused the financial meltdown... by removing regulation (Glass Steagall).  what what what!

If they're trolling me they're doing a damn good job of it. 

I also listened to them throw out "facts" that the amount of federal employees has tripled under Obama   

If only he was that sort of job creator

[Mupepe]

They also complained that $165 million went to medicaid and they kept asking "what jobs did that create??"

I don't know why I do this to myself

[Dickie Dee]

Butt-hurt Bill O piece in the paper today:

"Late night liberals love laughing at republicans"

I know 'he mad' and all, but his dumb ass just doesn't get it. They show clips of repubs talking and laugh at how ridiculous it is. No need to take things out of context or distort it. They write the comedy themselves and want to be taken seriously. It's hilarious. Fox news could have the number 1 late night comedy show if they just recap their day.

yup, Bill Clinton's pecadilloes were completely taboo...

[Great Rumbler]

 

I love how Fox News and ect. are completely turning on everyone that's against Romney. Rick Perry now sounds like "occupy Wall Street" and Newt Gingrich is now a "liberal in disguise". It's hilarious to me.

[MrAngryFace]

Politics just make me hate everyone. Watching candidates give speeches last night, seeing young adults behind them grinning like ANY of this is a good thing makes me wanna barf. And to be honest the Obama Parties always struck me as a little weird too. I just don't trust enthusiasm for anything other than The Slayers, Tech Romancer, Dynasty Warrior games, or Blizzard releases.

[Phoenix Dark]

And Warhammer

[MrAngryFace]

oh yeah, that too. But honestly I wouldnt go to a party held for any of those things. extremes are weird,.

[Joe Molotov]

oh yeah, that too. But honestly I wouldnt go to a party held for any of those things. extremes are weird,.

What if Dan Abnett was going to be there?

[MrAngryFace]

I dunno- i'd rather not meet him in person. His books are his books.

[Mandark]

Enthusiasm and social connections get things done.  It's not my scene, but it's no more "weird" than my own desire to watch 10 episodes of Archer in a row while eating Ben & Jerry's, and I'm glad other people are doing it so I don't have to.

[MrAngryFace]

its totally weird, shut up

[Phoenix Dark]

 

[Great Rumbler]

[TakingBackSunday]

Newt's on fire.  Obama is going to destroy Mitt in the debates.

[Cheebo]

I wonder what the hell was going through his mind when he said who let the dogs out. Seriously it was 2008. He thought it was something black people went around saying?

[Madrun Badrun]

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-dead-north-korean-scientists-are-a-wonderful-thing-2011-10

[MrAngryFace]

doesnt he read the bible or something- I thought he was all religious

[Damian79]

What if Mississippi in the 1960s was a place where people who don't like non-racists stop shopping at stores that let black people in, and THOSE stores go out of business?

Wouldnt have happened.  There would have been less racists out of congress than in congress that passed that bill.

[Phoenix Dark]

...

I'm done

[Mandark]

What if Mississippi in the 1960s was a place where people who don't like non-racists stop shopping at stores that let black people in, and THOSE stores go out of business?

Wouldnt have happened.  There would have been less racists out of congress than in congress that passed that bill.

So you're saying that the vote in Congress in favor of the CRA proves that the anti-racists outnumbered the racists?  And that this would have applied to the potential customers for a whites-only business in Mississippi in 1964?

edit: These are actual questions, not rhetorical.  I'm trying to make sure I understand clearly what you're trying to say here.

[Damian79]

So you're saying that the vote in Congress in favor of the CRA proves that the anti-racists outnumbered the racists?  And that this would have applied to the potential customers for a whites-only business in Mississippi in 1964?

Most likely yes.  Think about the age of the people in Congress.  Older people tend to be more racist.  30% of people in America today are racist.  I suspect (wild guess mind you I have no numbers) the racism was at 40-50% in the 1960s.

[Great Rumbler]

Not only are those numbers totally unsupported guesses, we're talking about RACISM here not party affiliation. You can't just compartmentalize "racist" and "non-racist" as if they are the only possible options.

[Mandark]

Okay, let's accept your premise that the vote on the CRA was equivalent to a Yes/No on racism, and that the Congressmen generally reflected the opinions of their constituents.

Here is the House roll call vote on the CRA, sorted by state.

Here is the Senate roll call.


So tell me, do you think a diner in Mississippi (or Alabama, or Georgia) would have been under pressure from its white customers to desegregate?

[Phoenix Dark]

So you're saying that the vote in Congress in favor of the CRA proves that the anti-racists outnumbered the racists?  And that this would have applied to the potential customers for a whites-only business in Mississippi in 1964?

Most likely yes.  Think about the age of the people in Congress.  Older people tend to be more racist. 30% of people in America today are racist.  I suspect (wild guess mind you I have no numbers) the racism was at 40-50% in the 1960s.

what?

[Human Snorenado]

Man, thank god only 40-50% of the population was racist back then.  It's a good thing that they weren't, you know, mostly in one area of the nation so they couldn't codify their racism into laws and use those laws to keep them uppity negras in their place or anything.  Shit, if something like that had happened, why we would have probably have had to pass some sort of landmark legislation in order to stop stuff like that!  Because, you know, it's not like human history is full of the powerful deciding to just stop oppressing the powerless without some sort of external action or whatever. 

I MEAN FUCK IT'S LIKE YOU'RE ACTUALLY FUCKING distinguished mentally-challenged OR SOMETHING

[Damian79]

Not only are those numbers totally unsupported guesses, we're talking about RACISM here not party affiliation. You can't just compartmentalize "racist" and "non-racist" as if they are the only possible options.

I can give you the study that says America is 30% racist.  but otherwise what you say is true.

[Damian79]

Okay, let's accept your premise that the vote on the CRA was equivalent to a Yes/No on racism, and that the Congressmen generally reflected the opinions of their constituents.

Here is the House roll call vote on the CRA, sorted by state.

Here is the Senate roll call.


So tell me, do you think a diner in Mississippi (or Alabama, or Georgia) would have been under pressure from its white customers to desegregate?

Yes you are right.  I didnt realise mississippi was one of your racist states.

[Human Snorenado]

Oh sweet fucking Jesus, you're not American?  PLEASE STFU THEN.

[Damian79]

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2007/07/26/the-most-racist-country-in-the-western-world/

Incase you wanted the numbers for the 30% racist thingy.

[Robo]

Campaign season is so much fun.

[Madrun Badrun]

Not only are those numbers totally unsupported guesses, we're talking about RACISM here not party affiliation. You can't just compartmentalize "racist" and "non-racist" as if they are the only possible options.

True.  I'm not racist in the sense that I'm comfortable with Mexicans but racist in the sense that I'm only comfortable with them when they are far away from me.  Call it a semi-racism.

[benjipwns]

That study isn't saying 30% racism, the guy tried to make an overall matrix of bigotry. From the data source (1999-2000) he used, the % responding "yes" to "I don't want X to live next door" is:
A different race: 8.1%
Muslims: 10.9%
Jews: 9.1%
Immigrants or foreign workers: 10.2%
Homosexuals: 22.9%

To compare, Britain:
Race: 9.2%
Muslims: 14.1%
Jews: 6.2%
Immigrants: 15.1%
Gays: 24.1%

France:
Race: 9.1%
Muslims: 16.1%
Jews: 5.9%
Immigrants: 12.1%
Gays: 15.8%

Spain:
Race: 11.0%
Muslims: 13.2%
Jews: 21.7%
Immigrants: 10.2%
Gays: 15.7%

Norway
Race: 8.2%
Muslims: 19.3%
Jews: n/a
Immigrants: 9.8%
Gays: 14.3%

Paper is available here: http://news.ulster.ac.uk/podcasts/Bigotry.pdf

[Phoenix Dark]

anyone who googles "what percentage of people are racists" doesn't understand racism

[Damian79]

That study isn't saying 30% racism, the guy tried to make an overall matrix of bigotry. From the data source (1999-2000) he used, the % responding "yes" to "I don't want X to live next door" is:

Paper is available here: http://news.ulster.ac.uk/podcasts/Bigotry.pdf

Oh my bad.  I couldnt access the paper before for somereason from the link from that website.

[Mandark]

Yes you are right.  I didnt realise mississippi was one of your racist states.

You're not from around here, are you?

[Damian79]

anyone who googles "what percentage of people are racists" doesn't understand racism

I have my own weird viewpoint on racism.  I belive everyone is racist in some way.

[Damian79]

Yes you are right.  I didnt realise mississippi was one of your racist states.

You're not from around here, are you?

Nope.  I am from Australia.