2012 U.S Presidential Race

[baja_yu]

I will leave the begging to you sir.

Even though I don't believe in God, I do think pride is a sin.

You have to do more than merely throwing an insult at me; try and explain why a white man leading a team of 20 black men, which looks like the white man sees himself as superior to black men and happy dominating them, is not racist et vice versa.

How is me saying that FunkyDexter's opinion is not racist an insult to you?

You seem to have missed the answer I just wrote to FunkyDexter: "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."

You repeated that plenty of times. What I asked for was a specific example of the supposed disempowerment.

The problem is that the political power is then moving away from a liberal democracy, away from representing the main segment of the population and towards a minority leader who is almost certainly a black supremacist.

Supremacist is as supremacist does.

I can't believe you don't mind when somebody else speaks for you, amazing, a human muppet.

There are two replies to be made here. First the more obvious one: he wasn't speaking for me, he was saying that you misunderstood what I said. And he was right.
But there's a much better reply here. Here's a quote from your post earlier:

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.

So, since you have a representative government elected to speak and do on your behalf, by your own words you are a human muppet. Interesting.

No, he definitely told me not to use the word, you seem to have amnesia: "Finally, stop saying explicated."

You took that sentence out of context.

[baja_yu]

The problem is that by extension you are suggesting that only those most capable of leading should do so. In the case of the modern world, where whites have superior science and technology, it translates into white led minority governments the world over. However, it is clearly racist for one race to dominate all other races, so instead it is preferable to avoid treating other races as pets and let each race govern itself in order to set them free. In other words choosing leaders that represent the predominant race of the electorate sets everyone free, choosing the best man for the job regardless of race has the potential to move society backwards towards a white supremacy.

Wow. I can't be the only one reading this. Or do other forum members just not have a long enough pole...

There's such a mess in that text that it's hard to choose where to begin.

How are whites superior in science and technology? And what's your contribution to it? What technology did you come up with to give your self the right to claim it as your own. What gives you the right to claim the findings of Albert Einstein for yourself, the white race, or any other group? For all we know Einstein might have hated your guts.

And how do you propose to let each race govern itself? We'd have several different presidents, one for each race? How would that work, aside from having a racially and ethnically clean country? And why stop there, what should we do with any other religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, sports team affiliation? Ok, so I'd like one white, atheist, male, straight president who doesn't follow sports, please. Oh, I'd like that in tall size as well. No foam.

[SJWhiteley]

Wow. I can't be the only one reading this. ...

No, you are not alone.

I'm quite impressed by the forum members refrain in this thread.

[FunkyDexter]

No, a minority government by definition disempowers the main or predominant segment of the electorate

Why? Please explicate. So far you haven't. You've merely asserted. There is simply no point in engaging with the rest of your position until you've actually managed to provide a reasoned argument to support this view. Why is a black president INCAPABLE of fairly representing a constituancy which, while pre-dominantly white, is also heterogenous in nature? The only reason I can think of would be that you believe the interests of blacks and whites to be so diverse as to be incompatible... which is the thinking that led to segregation in the first place.

I already indicated that the whole point of democracy is to disempower all minorities

It isn't. It really, really isn't. What you've just said has been the mantra of far-right racial supremacists organisations through the ages. The logical extension of that argument is to remove the right to vote from minorities. Would that be a desirable proposition.

I assume you feel Gays and Lesbians should also be dissempowered? How about Muslims and Jews? The disabled? People with ginger hair? People with green eyes? What do you define as a minority? Is it purely a racial thing for you?

that favours central control or dictatorships such as an Oba which is a Nigerian King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oba_(ruler).

When you decided to post that you probably weren't aware that I grew up in Nigeria and I can tell you with absolute authority that a Nigerian Oba has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. It's an honorific title that confers no right to rule in Nigerian law. Everone you meet in Nigeria is a Chief, or Prince or King. Those titles don't have the same meaning there as they do in the west. Alot of them go back to Nigeria's pre-colonial past when every village had a head man. When the English colonised the country these head guys adopted English titles in order to impress the English. Thus you could happily be the king of a village of half a dozen mud huts. Those that haven't been inherited from back then have been made up more recently in the mistaken belief that it would be easier scam Westerners if they thought you were royal.

You seem to be speaking for baja_yu

Yes but I was confident I'd understood his position. A position that he has subsequently confirmed. I was fully prepared for him to correct me if I was wrong. You, on the other hand, were deliberately missrepresenting his position. You were then attempting to undermine the position you were asserting he held, even though he didn't hold it. It was smoke and mirrors and I felt that needed addressing.

No, he definitely told me not to use the word, you seem to have amnesia: "Finally, stop saying explicated."

Yep, I did. The reason was that it's not a word most people would commonly use, there are plenty of more common and adequate words you could have chosen, e.g. "explained" and your usage of therefore comes across as an attempt to appear more intelligent than you actually are. Combine that with the fact that you were clearly missusing it and it was actually making you look like a pompous buffoon. Incidentally your attempt to inject latin into your argument (using id est instead of i.e. as anyone else would have done) has a very similar effect... QED.

[Witis]

Even though I don't believe in God, I do think pride is a sin.

Get some self respect man.

How is me saying that FunkyDexter's opinion is not racist an insult to you?

So far I have indicated that it would be extremely arrogant and racist for a white man to try and lead a team of 20 black men et vice versa as one race should not dominate another, and you have simply stated that it is not racist to do so yet have supplied no reason for your view. What makes you think it is appropriate for a racial minority to dominate the racial majority, for one race to dominate another under any circumstances?

You repeated that plenty of times. What I asked for was a specific example of the supposed disempowerment.

You are stuck, a minority led government is an example of where the political power has shifted to enable a particular minority to lead the majority.

Supremacist is as supremacist does.

You don't seem too worried about the move away from a liberal democracy towards an Oba, a nigerian King.

There are two replies to be made here. First the more obvious one: he wasn't speaking for me

He was speaking for you, I wrote directly to you and he answered for you.

So, since you have a representative government elected to speak and do on your behalf, by your own words you are a human muppet.

Democracy is the most decentralised political system that I can imagine so the analogy is incorrect to the point of being woeful.

You took that sentence out of context.

That's sad.

[Witis]

Wow. I can't be the only one reading this. Or do other forum members just not have a long enough pole...

What is the pole for baja_yu?

How are whites superior in science and technology?

The first world is just that.

And what's your contribution to it? What technology did you come up with to give your self the right to claim it as your own. What gives you the right to claim the findings of Albert Einstein for yourself, the white race, or any other group? For all we know Einstein might have hated your guts.

I have to say I found that rant particularly amusing.

And how do you propose to let each race govern itself?

Astounding as it might seem they are already doing a good job all by themselves.

We'd have several different presidents, one for each race?

I was clearly suggesting majority led liberal democracies in lieu of white minority governments, I have no idea how you got to this particular point.

[Witis]

No, you are not alone.

I'm quite impressed by the forum members refrain in this thread.

Don't be shy sir, let us know what you thoughts are in relation to this issue.

[baja_yu]

I'm mad at myself for spending this much time trying to reason with an idiot. So I'm not going to do it anymore. Good luck to the rest of the forum members.

[Witis]

Why? Please explicate. So far you haven't. You've merely asserted. There is simply no point in engaging with the rest of your position until you've actually managed to provide a reasoned argument to support this view.

Nothing to it, a minority led government indicates that the majority have become disempowered so that the minority can lead.

Why is a black president INCAPABLE of fairly representing a constituancy which, while pre-dominantly white, is also heterogenous in nature?

The problems that I have previously mentioned include that minority led governments disempower the majority and centralise or concentrate the political power it in the hands of a few and that racial minority governments are inherently racist constructs.

It isn't. It really, really isn't. What you've just said has been the mantra of far-right racial supremacists organisations through the ages. The logical extension of that argument is to remove the right to vote from minorities. Would that be a desirable proposition.

When I indicated that the whole point of democracy is to disempower minorities it was contextually clear that by this I meant that democracy is designed so that the political power is not concentrated in the hands of a few which protects society against tyrants. I don't believe that democracy has anything to do with removing the minorities ability to vote, instead it is designed to ensure that the government accurately represents the constituency.

I assume you feel Gays and Lesbians should also be dissempowered? How about Muslims and Jews? The disabled? People with ginger hair? People with green eyes? What do you define as a minority? Is it purely a racial thing for you?

Remove their ability to vote, certainly not.

When you decided to post that you probably weren't aware that I grew up in Nigeria and I can tell you with absolute authority that a Nigerian Oba has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

With a name like Obama of course it is relevant.

It's an honorific title that confers no right to rule in Nigerian law.

The wiki page actually stipulates: Oba(Ruler).

Yes but I was confident I'd understood his position.

Dude you should never speak for anyone else.

Yep, I did. The reason was that

There is no excuse for telling anyone what words they can and cannot use, the first world is founded on freedom not control and nobody including you has the right to tell anyone else how they should express themselves. Not verging on, you are megalomaniacal.

[si_the_geek]

You are (intentionally or not) repeatedly showing lots of troll-like tendencies, for example:

• you repeatedly use the wrong words (I have read the entire thread, and I don't think I've seen you explicate anything, merely state and re-state your opinions... there are other words you abuse too) and then pretend that others are out of order for pointing out when you are clearly using the wrong word,
• you make claims which on the surface at least are not logical (sometimes they even contradict your previous points), but refuse to attempt any justification of them (at best, you re-state them),
• you have often verged on being abusive towards others because they have questioned you (which is why a moderator needs to keep reading what you post here - there is a good chance that action will be needed at some point).

I'm not getting into a discussion with you, I'm pointing out why it is pointless to do so - unless somebody has a particular desire to waste their time.

[thebuffalo]

try and explain why a white man leading a team of 20 black men, which looks like the white man sees himself as superior to black men and happy dominating them, is not racist et vice versa.

You seem to have missed the answer I just wrote to FunkyDexter: "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."

First off, If I was a mexican leading a group of 20 white men, I would still feel superior, same goes if I was white and led 20 white man, I am still their superior.

Secondly, Just because the Obama is President, does remove power from me in any way. Obama will actually be at my college tomorrow morning, and I couldn't care any less, it's not possible. Your comments are stereotypical and going by stereotypes, the "white" race is still more "empowered" and we are still by FAR the MAJORITY. I am a proud White/Italian/Native American and just because the "black" culture has taken over my country, and Obama is president does not mean that we are the Minority.

You need to do a headcount of whites vs everything else if you think we are the minority, you are greatly mistaken.

[FunkyDexter]

I will make one last attempt to engage you in a serious debate then I'm going the way of Baja. (It just occurred to me that the "way of the Badger" would make a great martial art. It would basically just consist of being extremely grumpy.) If you're interested in a serious discussion I'd love to have one, if not I'll stop feeding. If I'm honest I think my own posts were starting to head towards uncivil and for that I apologise.

You've asked us several times to demonstrate how a black man leading a team of whites or a white man leading a team of blacks can be not racist. I had a job 5 years ago for a company in Bournemouth. The Managing Director was an ethnic Indian. Almost every employee was white (I can think of one guys in sales who was black but I think that's it... Bournemouth is not a particularly diverse town). None of us looked at him and thought "hey, this guys racist, how dare he run this company". We looked at him and thought "hey, this guys a successful businessman, he pays my salary and he's a pleasure to work for". We were aware of his ethnicity, of course, but it was completely irrelevant to us. He wasn't the Indian boss, he was just the boss.

I honestly struggle to see how you could look on that situation and construe it as in any way racist. I think you're position only stands up if you view race as an issue and that's the fundamental difference between South Africa under apartheid and the USA under Obama. In South Africa race was most definitely an issue wheras the Obama presidency, love him or loathe him, is a very positive sign that, for the vast majority of Americans at least, race has ceased to be an issue... and isn't that the direction we want to be heading in? You're right that in both cases a constituency is being led by an ethnic minority but the contexts are diametrically opposite.

I don't see the Obama presidency as blacks taking over, I see it as blacks and whites ceasing to care about black and white. We're all just fifty shades of grey - one big, rather poorly written romance novel.

[thebuffalo]

''No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something.''

—Barack Obama

Just gunna throw that out there...

[moonman239]

Wow. Someone open a window, there's a lot of hot air in here.
I decided to read George Washington's farewell address today. One of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that President Washington hoped "that the free Constitution, which is the work of [citizens'] hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue." Based on this quote, I would say that if President Washington were alive today he would rebuke President Obama and thank the Republican party for nominating Governor Romney.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

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.

This post has to be the most wrong headed post i have read in some time.

Why on earth do you think that a white man can represent you better than a black man? what is it about the white man that makes you think they will do a better job of representing you?

do you believe that skin colour itself is the main factor in someone being able to represent people? rather than say policies?

also you keep using the term minority government, Obama is not the government he is just one guy the democratic party is in government and they are definitely not a minority.

[SJWhiteley]

This post has to be the most wrong headed post i have read in some time.

...

Absolutely - In reference to the post(s) by Witis. The word 'racist' is so overly applied today that it doesn't mean anything.

[Hack]

I would expect that lots of people end up voting for the one they dislike the least.

Thats how I've voted for president in the last 4 elections.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm mad at myself for spending this much time trying to reason with an idiot. So I'm not going to do it anymore. Good luck to the rest of the forum members.

That may be (along with my being off on a 230 mile walk-about) the reason.

Frankly, I seem to remember that whites are either no longer the majority in the US, or soon won't be, though we may remain the largest minority party for some time. I'm not interested in looking it up, because I feel that it is rather silly. The truth is that we have been lead by a minority for decades, if not all of our existence, and will likely continue to be. After all, the presidency is not an option for 99% of the people in this country. Obama may well have the distinction of being one of the poorest presidents in decades, despite being a millionaire.

Why do we divide people based on the color of their skin? I realize that it is particularly easy to do, and despite genetics showing us that race doesn't really exist, we will continue to do so. As a species, we make a big point of dividing all groups into us versus them, and something as simple as appearance is by far the easiest way to do so. In fact, the biggest distinction is not the color of the skin, but the size of the wallet. We won't have a president who is middle class....EVER! It's simply too expensive to run for office. Therefore, we will always be governed by people who are vastly more wealthy than the average person they rule. Does anybody seriously believe that this distinction is not a very significant one in the lives of people? The rich ARE different in their behavior, outlooks, morality, and in many other ways. They are also a distinctly small minority. Therefore, we will always be ruled by a minority.

As an aside, why is Obama considered black? His mother was white, his father was black. How awesomely powerful is one race that a 50% mix is sufficient that it is categorized solely by one half of its components? Of course, in the racial history of the US, it took a much smaller percentage to make the child legally black, but we have moved away from those distinctions in the law, if not in social consciousness.

[techgnome]

"Why do we divide people based on the color of their skin?" -- I blame Borax ... for far too many years were weer taught to separate our whites from colors ... and then there was the move to separate your whites from the yokes... we're a society built on separation... for what ever reason, it's a natural humanistic thing to do.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

and then there was the move to separate your whites from the yokes...

I had to preserve that one. I believe there is a deeper significance to that statement which transcends simple programming. Further more, at the risk of egging you on, I don't think this is anything to yolk about.

Other than a few puns that would sound better spoken, I agree. Humanity is built on categorization and segregation in all aspects, not just people and not just societies.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, I think I saw that one fairly recently.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Nothing to it, a minority led government indicates that the majority have become disempowered so that the minority can lead.

You seem to have made no attempt to explain your viewpoint; instead, you simply repeat it. Effectively, your response to every question you've been asked on this thread is a variation of "Because it is".

Why is a minority government racist? Because it is.
Why does a president being from an ethnic minority mean that the majority are disempowered? Because it does.
Why is it racist for a white man to lead a team of black workers? Because it is.
Why do you think it's impossible for a black president to represent a white consituency? Because it is.

While your debating skills lack a certain finesse, I'm very impressed by your stamina.

[dilettante]

Hmm...

I had taken the topic of this thread to be "race" as in "contest."

[FunkyDexter]

I think Obama's race is important for two reasons:
1. Because having a black (or mixed race if you prefer) president of the United States is a milestone on the path to integration but more importantly
2. Because a significant minority on both sides of the fence clearly still think it's important.

It would be hard to deny that a significant proportion of the black voters in the US probably voted for Obama because he was black and because of the milestone he would represent. Equally, it's pretty obvious that there are a number of whites who will hate him and want rid of him for that self same reason. And they won't all be the sort of folks you'd normally categorise as extremist either. You've only got to look at the rumours that were spread about him being a muslim at the last election to see that some folks we'd generally regard as mainstream still hold some deep seated prejudices. The significant thing about that is not that it was mainstream pundits generating those rumours, but rather that those mainstream types knew that they rumours would gain some traction with the electorate at large.

In that regard I felt Witis, despite a bit of a lack of grace, was raising some interesting points. Whether we're comfortable with it or not there will be a significant number of people who do think that a black man meading whites is inherently racist, or at least racially significant. And the same in reverse.

Just to pre-empt, I know I've conflated muslim with black here which is not strictly accurate. But that conflation is just part of the murky set of slightly uninformed prejudices we're talking about.

Anyway, off the race topic, what was up with Romney's recent outburst? Was he really claiming that all liberals are dole junkies as is being reported over here or is his position being distorted by the time I get to see it? If that's really what he think he strikes me as a bit irrational, or at least prone to hyperbolae.

[dilettante]

I have no clue whatsoever how anyone would conflate being black with being muslim. Sure makes me wonder about people. I guess none of you is black, don't have any black neighbors or friends, never had a black boss or coworker, know any black people, etc.

Most of the crap you read about Obama being "not born here" or "a muslim" or "communes with the dead" and so on is just FUD. You have a synergy between rank racism and the obstinate tendency to vote against ones own economic interests here that provides a ready audience for such BS here. So the Machine on the other side of the political divide from Obama is quite happy to oblige, though being as careful as they can (with glaring exceptions and outright slips) about covering their tracks due to the unsavory nature of this sort of campaigning.

Er, and in case you missed it Obama was elected nearly 4 years ago now and has held office since that time. So I have no clue where any "milestone" notion comes from, that's long past now.


You have to discount anything Romney says. He is totally isolated from the real world as a member of the monied elite. Most of his lines are fed to him but he often fails to repeat them as rehearsed. When he improvises you get some idea of how he really thinks, but the trick is figuring out when he's tried to say what - making everything he utters unreliable and incredible in the literal sense.

At least we're done with this soon. I just hope we come out of it clean rather than facing the prospect of the kind of neo-feudalism he espouses.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Unfortunately true. On the other hand, there are plenty of regular Joes that I know who would make absolutely horrid presidents.

By the way, my current handicapping of the race would say that Romney will lose. He can't seem to get out of his own way. The real question I have is whether the right's desperation to get rid of Obama will cause them to turn out in greater numbers than the left which is unenthusiastic about Obama. Neither fringe normally has the numbers to turn an election, but they may this time, because the center may be fairly evenly divided in their peculiar influences. Still, I think that the Obama machine will get enough of the left to turn out, and will get a slight majority of the center, and that will give hime the victory. I thought that was rather unlikely early in the year, but Romney can't seem to avoid tripping himself. That might still turn around, and he might get to control the discussion in some way. However, he's running out of time and showing a decided pattern of tripping before he gets his stride.

[techgnome]

The reason that those who run are well-to-do is because they're really the only ones that can afford to do it. I've though about it from time to time in the past, but then it means taking unpaid time off ... as the main income source... that's not going to happen.

-tg

[techgnome]

Sort of... I was in the Air Force... My political view - Libertarian. Smaller government, fewer taxes, personal freedom, personal responsibility, fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I plan to vote for Gary Johnson.

I remember when I got my wisdom teeth... it's only second to the time I torqued my back and the doc gave me codine to take "as needed" wheeeeee!

-tg

[FunkyDexter]

I have no clue whatsoever how anyone would conflate being black with being muslim.

Just to be clear, it's not a conflation I make, but it is one that gets made, and made alot. That's why people were able to use it as ammunition against Obama in the last election. It's bizarre, but also quite common.

The point I was making was that a significant minority (possibly even a majority at a sub-concious level, I don't know) do still view issues like race, religion, sexuality or whatever else you can think of as more important than ability when selecting a president. I don't like that phenomenon but I can't deny it's existence. That means Obama's race is important because a significant minority will make it important, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my opinion). It's not limited to the US either, we're exactly the same over here in the Uk and I'm willing to bet the rest of the world is the same.

The reason that those who run are well-to-do is because they're really the only ones that can afford to do it.

I was listening to an intersting skit on Radio 4 as I drove into work today. An American lady (I have no idea who, I missed the beginning) was talking about ways of taking the money out of the campaigning process. The conclusion seemed to be that it probably wasn't feasible but that if it could be achieved it would be a healthy step for any democracy. I'm inclined to agree.