2012 U.S Presidential Race

[moonman239]

Let's talk about the election this year. Which of the candidates do you like best and why?

[baja_yu]

Lets not.

[dilettante]

Yeah, there isn't much point. It sort of breaks down to people who have gone to their corners (two sides, each considering the other supernaturally evil), people with their heads in the sand, people with fringe issues interested in marginalized 3rd party candiates with confused messages, and those sick of it all.

The "retreated to their corners" groups are probably the largest by far. Most of the "sick of it" people are probably actually in one corner or the other. The fringe probably won't matter much this time around. That leaves the "wait until I get there then vote at random" crowd - the kind swayed by ads and who probably aren't even sure who the incumbent is.

So talking about it won't change any minds at this late date. All we can do is grit our teeth and see what ends up happening: progress or regress.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I do like the range of choices in this poll, though. I would expect that lots of people end up voting for the one they dislike the least.

[baja_yu]

This episode describes every election held anywhere in the world at any point in time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd

[moonman239]

Yeah, there isn't much point. It sort of breaks down to people who have gone to their corners (two sides, each considering the other supernaturally evil), people with their heads in the sand, people with fringe issues interested in marginalized 3rd party candiates with confused messages, and those sick of it all.

The "retreated to their corners" groups are probably the largest by far. Most of the "sick of it" people are probably actually in one corner or the other. The fringe probably won't matter much this time around. That leaves the "wait until I get there then vote at random" crowd - the kind swayed by ads and who probably aren't even sure who the incumbent is.

So talking about it won't change any minds at this late date. All we can do is grit our teeth and see what ends up happening: progress or regress.

Romney has the best chance of winning this year. Yes, Obama has a lead over him in some states, but notice how overall, less than 50% of the voters surveyed said they like Romney and less than 50% said they like Obama. As long as the percentages don't add up to 1, the numbers are in Romney's favor. Why? Because the remaining voters have not yet decided who they will vote for. Election history shows that those people always end up voting for the incumbent's contender.

[BlindSniper]

I do like the range of choices in this poll, though. I would expect that lots of people end up voting for the one they dislike the least.

I think that is exactly what people do when they vote. I did a Google search for the differences between the two, but all the pages I found where biased to one or the other side, but I got a reasonable idea of the differences between the two. I'm not going to vote in the poll because obviously I'm not an American, but If I was I would probably vote democrat, since I dislike all the values/morals/policies of the republicans.

[FunkyDexter]

Election history shows that those people always end up voting for the incumbent's contender

Really? Over here (in the UK) it's generally considered that the incumbant has a considerable edge over the opposition. Your system's different, though, so I guess the factors at play are different.

[SJWhiteley]

Really? Over here (in the UK) it's generally considered that the incumbant has a considerable edge over the opposition. Your system's different, though, so I guess the factors at play are different.

I cannot recall, but doesn't the incumbent effectively decide when the next election will be held (within specific guidelines)? I don't think I ever voted in the UK. In the US, of course, the elections are on a fixed cycle.

While many people may well vote for the 'lesser of two evils', there are a lot of people who will actually vote for [what they believe] to be the best - or rather a 'good' - candidate. Personally, there is very little about the Republican policies I do not like. Do I 'like' Ryan and/or Romney? This is a 'social media' question and is irrelevant; a conditioning that has dumbed down the average voter.

Setting aside the fact that we sometimes cannot choose our boss, does anyone really 'like' their boss? Is it possible to differentiate between the boss's likability and their effectiveness? These are two separate scales, but the past few decades of media penetration have equated the two when it comes to political support. Today, like it or not, a politician in a wheelchair wouldn't stand a chance (no pun(s) intended).

To run a country, you need someone who can be a heartless ******* when it comes to making the hard choices, to make the right choice. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned (again) to see a self-centered 'fairness' as the right choice. There are various fables, plays, books (including the Bible) that demonstrate that being fair is not what people think it is.

[Witis]

One of the main problems at the moment is that the USA is a predominantly white nation (representing 70% of the population), has been for quite a while, and is currently being lead by a racial minority, in this case black which only accounts for 10% of the population. Whenever a minority starts to lead the majority it always runs the risk of being viewed as a racist outcome akin to apartheid in South Africa. Although at 6 feet 2 inches Mitt Romney is hardly of white proportions, for example James Madison the fourth president of the United States stood at 5 feet 4 inches, and this might lead to a large protest or white vote against both candidates from voters unable to determine which candidate is blacker than the other.

[baja_yu]

Did I misunderstand your post or did you just compare Obama's presidency to the apartheid?

[SJWhiteley]

One of the main problems at the moment is that the USA is a predominantly white nation ...

O.o

..

<Waiting for Godwin's Law to kick in>

[SJWhiteley]

One of the main problems at the moment is that the USA is a predominantly white nation ...

O.o

..

<Waiting for Godwin's Law to kick in>

[Witis]

Did I misunderstand your post or did you just compare Obama's presidency to the apartheid?

That's right, I indicated that Obama's presidency runs the risk of being categorised as racist as it involves a minority led government and minority rule also transpired in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.

[baja_yu]

Runs the risk with whom? Racist *******s?

So you see signs like this in America today, only saying "for use by members of the black race group"?



That's very interesting. I also though that there were only about 10% african americans in congress and just one justice of the supreme court. But I see that I just didn't have the facts straight. And to think I planned on coming to the US one day. Now that you showed me what it's really like, I'm having second thoughts. I don't want to have to sit in the back of the bus with other oppressed white people.

[FunkyDexter]

Runs the risk with whom? Racist *******s?

Actually I think it is worth considering that group. Extremist organisations will go looking for any percieved injustice to hang their flag on and having a black president probably does give them some traction they wouldn't otherwise have. I don't think that's what Witis is driving at and it would seem a frankly bizarre basis to condem the Obama presidency on but it's an interesting point none the less.

On the other hand...

Witis, you cannot seriously be comparing the Obama presidency to Apartheid. The difference isn't in the fact that both were/are governed by a leader from an ethnic minority - you're right that they are similar in that regard. The difference is that in South Africa the minority we the elite and used that position to impose legislation on the majority that turned them into second class citizens. America is the exact opposite of that. The black minority are most definitely not an elite (I think I'd be comfortable saying they're still an under-class but I apreciate that might be arguable in some quarters) and I've seen absolutly no evidence of them trying to turn the majority caucasion population into second class citizens. Obama's presidency, whether people like him and his policies or not, represents a huge milestone on the path to full racial integration and equality in the US. Apartheid represented an absolute lack that dynamic in South Africa.

[SJWhiteley]

That's right, I indicated that Obama's presidency runs the risk of being categorised as racist as it involves a minority led government and minority rule also transpired in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.

Yet another raised eyebrow. The corollary is that a majority (sic) led government and majority rule is non-racist... :O

...regardless, one could legitimately argue that there isn't a lot of time left for this to happen.

[ahmedkhairy]

D is the best..

[dday9]

I'm voting Republican. The reason being is because the majority of my core values are in agreeance with the republican parties "core" "values". I'm not voting Democrat because there are some "Core" "Values" that just completely take me back. I would really like to see a party that's down the middle and had a chance at the oval office. Libertarians look like something I'd be interested in, however I don't feel as though my vote would count if voted for them because I don't think they have a chance.

[baja_yu]

That mentality basically comes from wanting the other guy to lose instead of wanting your own to win. I think most of the people vote like that. And that's why it's a two party system and why a third party wont get a chance.

[dday9]

That mentality basically comes from wanting the other guy to lose instead of wanting your own to win. I think most of the people vote like that. And that's why it's a two party system and why a third party wont get a chance.

Very very true. Most people want to see the other person fail rather than succeeding together.

[FunkyDexter]

I would really like to see a party that's down the middle and had a chance at the oval office.

Be careful what you wish for. Over here we've got a problem where the parties have all melded into an amorphous, middle-of-the-road, grey blob with nothing of any consequence to separate them. Voter turn out is tanking because there's just not much point in engaging. The whole systems become bland and insipid. Oddly, the parties that seem to do well out of this are the extremists like the BNP because they're the only parties that appear to offer an alternative.

Overall our systems fairly healthy but this relentless pursuit of the middle ground has, in my opinion, done considerable damage and we were better off, from an engagement point of view at least, in the 70s and 80s. At least back then it felt like there was something worth voting for.

[Witis]

Runs the risk with whom? Racist *******s?

No, I am referring to independent observers capable of coming to an independent and objective determination regarding the current political clime in the US.

I don't want to have to sit in the back of the bus with other oppressed white people.

Exactly.

[Witis]

Witis, you cannot seriously be comparing the Obama presidency to Apartheid. The difference isn't in the fact that both were/are governed by a leader from an ethnic minority - you're right that they are similar in that regard. The difference is that in South Africa the minority we the elite and used that position to impose legislation on the majority that turned them into second class citizens. America is the exact opposite of that. The black minority are most definitely not an elite (I think I'd be comfortable saying they're still an under-class but I apreciate that might be arguable in some quarters) and I've seen absolutly no evidence of them trying to turn the majority caucasion population into second class citizens. Obama's presidency, whether people like him and his policies or not, represents a huge milestone on the path to full racial integration and equality in the US. Apartheid represented an absolute lack that dynamic in South Africa.

Yet another raised eyebrow. The corollary is that a majority (sic) led government and majority rule is non-racist... :O

The problem is that minority governments empower a racial minority and disempower the majority and when the majority loses its power it is an extremely undesirable political situation as it exposes everyone to the risk of negative outcomes including those experienced by South Africa under apartheid. While it is also possible for majority governments to implement legislation that is less beneficial or detrimental towards a particular racial minority the net effect on society is substantially less. As a result racial minority governments are not a desirable result in any society.

Moreover I would have to be exceedingly arrogant to really believe that I could or should try and take on any leadership positions in situations where I do not reflect the racial majority of those involved. For example I would definitely feel like a racist if I were a white man leading a team of 20 black men. By extension I would probably feel like a ne plus ultra white supremacist if I were to lead an entire African nation. As a result Barrack Obama runs the risk of being viewed as a black supremacist by running for and accepting the role of President of the United States of America.

In addition it means that minority governments are more likely to create racist legislation than majority governments as they are inherently racist constructs.

[FunkyDexter]

The problem is that minority governments empower a racial minority and disempower the majority and when the majority loses its power it is an extremely undesirable political situation

I think I can see where your coming from but I'd disagree on a couple of points. 1. A minority government doesn't necessarily disempower the majority (and I don't believe it has in the case of the Obama presidency) and 2. it's not just undesirable when the majority is disempowered, it's undesirable when any consitituent group is disempowered.

Arguably point 2 is inevitable in a democracy - for one group to prosper another must suffer - and this is often referred to as the tyranny of democracy. Actually, that's a bit simplistic, I think it's possible for everyone to prosper in real terms. On the other hand human beings tend to guage themselves realative to their peers so even though we might both be prospering I'll still tend to feel down-trodden if you prosper more than me. Anyway, that's kind of off the point.

I agree that a minority govenrment is more likely to disempower the majority than a majority government is. You've only got to look at the various collapsing governments in the middle east to see that phenomenon. You will see a sunni ruling over shiite or a shiite ruling over a sunni again and again. And it's unsurprising that these regimes were tyrannical in nature. If they hadn't been they wouldn't have survived. The same was true of South Africa. Wherever a government fails to represent its constituents it's only recourse, if it wants to survive, is tyranny.

However, I disagree that a minority must inevitably fail to represents it's constituents. A rather obvious difference between the Obama government and the South African regime of apartheid is that, under Obama, white people get the vote. In South Africa black people did not get the vote. If they had Apartheid wouldn't have lasted long (or at least, if it had it wouldn't have favoured the whites).

Another point is that Obama is just one man who is part of a governing body. A body which is overwhelmingly white. I don't have any stats but I'm willing to bet if you took a percentage of that governing body you would find blacks represent considerably less than 10%. As such Obama doesn't represent an unfair tipping of the balance but rather a redressing of the balance. It's a mistake to look at Obama's presidency and percieve it as an exclusively black rule. It's a mix. And I'd suggest that the ideal mix would be one where each constituent group is represented in the same proportions as it exists in the overall constituency. If blacks make up 10% of the population it should have 10% of the representation. 10% of the presidents should be black. Of course, that's an overly simplified scenario but does at least provide a goal for a healthy democracy to aim for.

[baja_yu]

Moreover I would have to be exceedingly arrogant to really believe that I could or should try and take on any leadership positions in situations where I do not reflect the racial majority of those involved. For example I would definitely feel like a racist if I were a white man leading a team of 20 black men. By extension I would probably feel like a ne plus ultra white supremacist if I were to lead an entire African nation. As a result Barrack Obama runs the risk of being viewed as a black supremacist by running for and accepting the role of President of the United States of America.

Every word here is completely racist, I hope you at least realize that. In todays world, one would hope, people are elected because of their values and political views, not to represent people of a certain color. Apartheid in South Africa was racist, not because a minority race was in power, but because of the laws and legislations they enacted. I have no problem with a white man leading a team of 20 black man, if that white man is a good leader, and best suited for the job, and vice versa. Now, if there were people in that team that would be better leaders, and he got the jobs just because he was white, then that would be racist.

And furthermore, I fail to see how people would have different needs, and by that need for a different representation, just based on their race. Don't we all want safety, job security and so on?

[baja_yu]

Exactly.

I thought the sarcasm would be obvious.

[dday9]

one would hope, people are elected because of their values and political views, not to represent people of a certain color.

The same could be said for the elderly black community that voted for Obama simply because of his skin color. There are a handful of news coverage with an elderly black woman saying how she's never voted in her life but because we have a black presidential candidate(this was back in '08) she is. I would hope that people would see that he(Pres. Obama) hasn't proposed a seriouse budget, or that the price of oil on the day of his inauguration $34.87 where as today(8/30/2012) it's about $95 give-or-take rather than seeing a skin that 's not white.

[baja_yu]

Right. And where did I say that that behavior doesn't happen in all races and creeds?

What I would hope is that people would understand global economics at least that much to know that a president of a country has almost no influence on global oil prices. I would also hope that Americans would understand that they have cheaper oil than any developed country. In fact, in UK, you can expect to pay over 3 times more. And when you mention the budget, depends on what you mean by 'serious'. But if you ask me, all parties are at fault when it comes to defense. The US counts for almost half of global defense expenditures.

[dday9]

I never mentioned that the US doesn't have cheaper oil, I was just giving a comparison on what it was compared to what it is now. Trust me, when my family went to Italy I was shocked at the price of gasoline, and they told me that they don't even have it bad! And the President Barack Obama does have quite a bit of influence on the global price of oil considering the following: American's consume the most oil(18.7 million barrels per day a few years back), the oil in the gulf that has some of the strictest restrictions, and the oil in Alaska. With these considerations, think of the following: Obama embargo's foreign oil, the results would be terrible to the oil industry; Obama lifts a few of the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the result would be fair(or even good) to the oil industry because of the amount of 'new' oil; and finally Obama restricts oil drilling in Alaska, the results would be not to good(or even bad) to the oil industry because of the lack of 'new' oil.

[Witis]

1. A minority government doesn't necessarily disempower the majority

A minority government by definition disempowers the majority so I am not sure that makes any sense. For example even though whites can vote and there are white members of congress it did not stop them them from becoming disempowered when the minority government occured in the United States.

2. it's not just undesirable when the majority is disempowered, it's undesirable when any consitituent group is disempowered.

Arguably point 2 is inevitable in a democracy - for one group to prosper another must suffer - and this is often referred to as the tyranny of democracy.

The main problem occurs when the majority is disempowered. The whole point of having democracy is to move away from concentrating the political power in the hands of a few or in the case of unilateral royalty the hands of one. So disempowering the few in favour of the many in order to decentralise and inject freeness into the political machine is what democracy is actually designed to accomplish and what makes it the absolute opposite of a tyrannical construct. As a result democracy is clearly not designed to produce minority governments and a minority government is a move in the wrong direction.

If blacks make up 10% of the population it should have 10% of the representation. 10% of the presidents should be black. Of course, that's an overly simplified scenario but does at least provide a goal for a healthy democracy to aim for.

That is an argument in support of minority led governments which I have explicated are inherently racist constructs that concentrate the all the political power in the hands of a few and should not be supported. The most racially tolerant outcome is a majority government where the power is completely decentralised and in such situations when society is founded on freeness governments will almost certainly enact anti racist legislation to protect all minorities.

[Witis]

Every word here is completely racist, I hope you at least realize that.

I am not convinced that majority governments are racist as you are suggesting by that comment and instead view your arguments in support of minority governments as an extreme form of racism.

In todays world, one would hope, people are elected because of their values and political views, not to represent people of a certain color.

Like it or not the racial demographics of an electoral constituency defines the race of any potential leaders in order for democracy to produce majority governments.

Apartheid in South Africa was racist, not because a minority race was in power, but because of the laws and legislations they enacted.

It was racist because it was a minority government and because of the legislation it enacted. As I explicated a minority government is an inherently racist construct.

I have no problem with a white man leading a team of 20 black man, if that white man is a good leader, and best suited for the job, and vice versa.

When a white man leads 20 black men it looks like they believe they are superior to black men. The problem is that you don't view a white man dominating 20 black men as a racist outcome.

Now, if there were people in that team that would be better leaders, and he got the jobs just because he was white, then that would be racist.

You are arguing it should be the best man for the job which by extension, due to the predominantly white first world, means you are arguing for white led minority governments in all the black nations which is another racist argument that is highly likely to foment another South Africa. The first world should not use its technological and scientific superiority to move into and dominate third world countries.

[FunkyDexter]

OK, now you're heading off into the wide blue yonder of dissillusion and, rather worryingly, rampant bigotry. Just to put your comments in context, what country do you live in and what's your ethnicity? I'm White and from Great Britain, by the way. In some of my responses below I have assumed your white but really only for convenience. If you're not then please substitute "you" for "the particular white man you feel is being disempowered, disenfrachised, unrepresented or otherwise marginalised" and my arguments should still sit within context.

A minority government by definition disempowers the majority so I am not sure that makes any sense. For example even though whites can vote and there are white members of congress it did not stop them them from becoming disempowered when the minority government occured in the United States

Why do you think "by definition" anyone is disempowered? That only holds true if you think a black man is incapable of representing you. I think most people would agree that's a fairly racist belief.

The main problem occurs when the majority is disempowered.

I agree (though I'd extend that to "when anybody is disempowered"... and I think that's an incredibly important distinction because without it you've got facism (Yay, Godwin's here, how many posts did that take?)). Where I disagree is that the white American majority have been disempowered by Obama.

The whole point of having democracy is to move away from concentrating the political power in the hands of a few or in the case of unilateral royalty the hands of one. So disempowering the few in favour of the many in order to decentralise and inject freeness into the political machine is what democracy is actually designed to accomplish and what makes it the absolute opposite of a tyrannical construct. As a result democracy is clearly not designed to produce minority governments and a minority government is a move in the wrong direction.

The whole point of having a democracy is to give a fair representation to the whole constituancy. Democracy translates to "Rule by the People" not "Rule by Most of the People". That's incredibly important, minorities are not second class citizens.

That is an argument in support of minority led governments

No, it's an argument for fair representation

The most racially tolerant outcome is a majority government where the power is completely decentralised

Centralisation and decentralisation have nothing to do with race.

I am not convinced that majority governments are racist as you are suggesting

That's not what he was suggesting at all!

in such situations when society is founded on freeness governments will almost certainly enact anti racist legislation to protect all minorities

On what basis do you make that assertion?

your arguments in support of minority governments

That's not what his arguments are in support of at all.

Like it or not the racial demographics of an electoral constituency defines the race of any potential leaders in order for democracy to produce majority governments.

Yeah, I think that's sadly still true. I think it's a shame but true none the less. That's why the Obama presidency is such a positive step (putting aside whether you agree with his politics or not)

It was racist because it was a minority government and because of the legislation it enacted

It was racist because it enacted racist legislation. The fact that it was a minority government was incidental. I think it would be hard to argue that the Mugabe government wasn't racist but it was a majority government by your terms.

Finally, stop saying explicated. What you mean is asserted or explained, both of which are perfectly good words. Explicated means to shed light on, you're doing no such thing.

[moonman239]

Upon analysis of historical data on the national debt*, I found that, during the course of Obama's term in office, the national debt has increased at a significantly higher rate than Bush did in his 8 years. The data suggests that, by January 31, 2015 the debt will have risen above $20,000,000,000 if Obama is allowed 4 more years**.

*For simplicity's sake, I looked at the national debt total for every January since and including January 2001.
**The estimate is based on an assumption that the debt increase over the years follows a line.

[thebuffalo]

I'm just going to throw this out there.....


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

By the way, I don't like Obama or Romney.

[techgnome]

The whole point of having a democracy is to give a fair representation to the whole constituancy. Democracy translates to "Rule by the People" not "Rule by Most of the People".

I want to work that backwards for a moment...

Most people seem to be under the impression that the US is a Democracy... it isn't...

Democracy translates to "Rule by the People"

That's true... a Democratic society is one where all people have a say in their laws and government... except in some very small rudimentary cases, this system does not exist. And has not existed for some time.

The whole point of having a democracy is to give a fair representation to the whole constituancy.

That is the point of a Republic... where the constituency elects people to vote on their behalf... This is the typical basis for a great number of governments. Even down at the town or city level... there's a City Council... an board of members appointed/elected by the members of the district they represent to vote on topics on behalf of their constituents.

True democracy does not exist.

-tg

[dday9]

That is the point of a Republic...

Who ever posted about the US being a democracy should go back to 10th grade, it's obviously a republic :]

True democracy does not exist

Sure it does, on some rediculously(pardon the spelling) small level that generally doesn't included government.

@Just about everybody on this thread:
To many quotes!

[FunkyDexter]

I want to work that backwards for a moment...

It's an aproach that's always served me well.

It's an interesting point. I think it depends on whether you want to use the literal translation of the word, which is indeed "by the people", or the more commonly accepted modern meaning, which is probably closer to "for the people". Or actually "with the representation of the people".

If you're taking the former definition then you're right, it doesn't exist at any meaningful level (although I guess small community groups still pursue it at local levels as DDay highlighted). I'm not sure it would actually be desirable either. In any large group I suspect it would very quickly descend into mob rule and that, in turn, would probably lead to some form of tyranny. Even if that descent could be avoided I doubt it would ever be able to make decisions. There were some folks touting the idea of allowing the public to vote on every policy via the internet a while back. It would be a disaster. We'd have zero taxes and massive public service spending. We'd be up to our eyeballs in debt by the end of the first year. And that's putting aside the question of who would get to decide which policy's were available to vote on in the first place.

If you're taking the latter definition (which I was) then I think it appies to the US and the UK (along with most of the world, happily). Basically it separates the concept of rule from representation. Of course we don't all rule, we can't, it wouldn't function. But we are all represented. Your government, whether you agree with the incumbant's policies or not, broadly have your best interests at heart. Or at least, they're trying to serve the best interests of the whole constituency. That means that they will make some decisions that don't benefit you as an individual and some that do. It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of decisions any democratic government makes are in your favour if you include the implicit decisions that you don't normally think about. For example, the government didn't decide to ban religion today. Neither did it decide to enforce that ban with a military crack down. It didn't decide to hike taxes to 90% and demand immediate payment at the point of a gun. It might sound like I'm being facetious there but those sorts of decisions can be and often are made in those parts of the world where the people don't have fair representation.

The real point I was making, though, is that all of these definitions refer to "the people" and not to "the largest ethnic group of people". I think that's really, REALLY important. History is full of examples regimes, mostly despotic but often democratic too, ostracised some minority group or other. The results are rarely something we can look back in with pride. The most obvious example would be the US treatment of blacks under slavery and laterly under segregation. (Not meaning to point the slavery finger exclusively at the US, the whole Western world shares that guilt, but since we're talking about the US and black presidents it seemed an apt example to pick). It seems to me that government purely for the majority, which the US was undoubtedly pursuing during those periods, is not necessarily a good think and a blanket assertion that it is is lazy and miss-informed.

Anyway, slightly more on topic: I gather Obama hasn't been the greatest domestic president on record but I will say that he's done your international repuation loads of good after the Bush tenure which pretty much destroyed it so he deserves credit for that. I don't think I'm qualified to comment on his domestic success or lack thereof because I'm not American.

To many quotes!

I disagree

[Witis]

OK, now you're heading off into the wide blue yonder of dissillusion

Thank you for noticing.

and, rather worryingly, rampant bigotry.

That's where I have to disagree, the bigot is you sir.

Why do you think "by definition" anyone is disempowered? That only holds true if you think a black man is incapable of representing you. I think most people would agree that's a fairly racist belief.

No, a minority government by definition disempowers the main or predominant segment of the electorate. If I were living in a predominantly black community founded on democracy then I would expect a black man to represent me, in a predominantly white community I would expect a white man to represent me. What is racist is your belief that a white minority should be able to lead a predominantly black community and that a black minority should be able to lead a predominantly white community.

I agree (though I'd extend that to "when anybody is disempowered"... and I think that's an incredibly important distinction because without it you've got facism (Yay, Godwin's here, how many posts did that take?)).

I already indicated that the whole point of democracy is to disempower all minorities in order to avoid concentrating the power in the hands of a few, by contrast you are promulgating an approach that moves away from decentralisation and freeness towards minority governments which also by definition concentrates the power in the hands of a few and by doing so you are moving away from democracy and towards extremist positions including facsim and communism or any other approach that favours central control or dictatorships such as an Oba which is a Nigerian King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oba_(ruler). In addition fascism completely condemns liberal democracies so you should be aware that you are completely wrong by trying to compare a liberal democracy focused on representing the main elements of the electorate to a fascist dictatorship or totalitarian regime.

Where I disagree is that the white American majority have been disempowered by Obama.

It is a minority led government which means that the whites have been disempowered by Obama. If a white man was to lead Nigeria then the black majority would have been disempowered. You seem stuck.

The whole point of having a democracy is to give a fair representation to the whole constituancy. Democracy translates to "Rule by the People" not "Rule by Most of the People". That's incredibly important, minorities are not second class citizens.

Democracy means people rule, not some of the people rule, id est it actually does mean representative or majority rule. Minorities are definitely not second class citizens although they should never feel arrogant and racist enough to think that they have a right to lead the rest of the electorate.

No, it's an argument for fair representation

I don't believe you will be able to sustain the argument that minority governments are in any way fair, instead substitute the terms eccentric, anti liberal, racist, and anti democratic.

Centralisation and decentralisation have nothing to do with race.

They have everything to do with race. If the power moves into the hands of a racial minority, whatever that minority is, then the political power has become centralised and concentrated in the hands of a few.

That's not what he was suggesting at all!

You seem to be speaking for baja_yu which I have to say I would find extremely offensive if you did the same for me.

On what basis do you make that assertion?

Majority governments are founded on freeness and are not a racist construct ergo they are the form of government most likely to enact legislation to protect minorities. By contrast minority governments are inherently racist constructs and as a result one should expect racist legislation to appear the longer they are in power.

That's not what his arguments are in support of at all.

Yet again speaking for other forum members, that's a nasty habit you have there.

Yeah, I think that's sadly still true. I think it's a shame but true none the less.

Finally some common ground.

That's why the Obama presidency is such a positive step (putting aside whether you agree with his politics or not)

Not too much though.

It was racist because it enacted racist legislation. The fact that it was a minority government was incidental.

I have already explicated why minority governments are inherently racist constructs so you will need to do better than that.

I think it would be hard to argue that the Mugabe government wasn't racist but it was a majority government by your terms.

Most would not view Mugabe as an example of a liberal democracy or even a democracy due to rigging the elections, as a result many put him the category of dictator.

Finally, stop saying explicated. What you mean is asserted or explained, both of which are perfectly good words. Explicated means to shed light on, you're doing no such thing.

You actually have the impudence to speak for others and then tell me what words I can and cannot use which I have to say is offensive verging on megalomaniacal.

[Witis]

I want to work that backwards for a moment...

Most people seem to be under the impression that the US is a Democracy... it isn't...

I am not sure I agree, "the term 'republic' classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies" - wiki, so by extension the US is a democratic republic which implements representative democracy.