www.ForumViaggiare.com

Links Sponsorizzati


Torna indietro   www.ForumViaggiare.com > International Forums - In english > Travelling in Europe

Tags:

Rispondi
 
Strumenti discussione Cerca in questa discussione ModalitÓ visualizzazione
  #1  
Vecchio 10-11-2012, 12.16.18
PJ O'D
 
Messaggi: n/a
Predefinito Ebony vs. Ivory: When Obama is 99 and 44/100% Pure



Ebony vs. Ivory: When Obama is 99 and 44/100% Pure

Nov 10, 4:32 am

"Perhaps we've discovered the real cherished "99 percent." Writing
that "[s]ome Philadelphia neighborhoods outdid themselves in
Tuesday's presidential election," Philly.com reports that 13 of the
city's wards recorded a victory margin for Barack Obama of 99
percent or more. In other words, in some precincts, Mitt Romney
was perhaps worth only three fifths of a percent.
This places Obama in rare company, with a result hardly seen since
Adolf Hitler "won" a 1936 referendum with 99 percent of the vote.
Remarking on the anomalous outcome, St. Joseph's University history
professor Randall Miller noted, writes Philly.com, "[P]oliticians
almost never get 99 percent of the votes anywhere except, perhaps,
the towns where they were born." Well, scratch that. Kenyans
can't vote in American elections (at least those actually in
Kenya)...yet.
Of course, such electoral unanimity could raise suspicions of vote
fraud, especially since the number of wards in which Obama achieved
his purity is remarkably close to the number of polling places (14)
that illegally expelled court-appointed Republican vote monitors on
Election Day. In reality, though, Obama's 99-percenter status
isn't surprising, given that he enjoys more than 95 percent support
from black Americans nationwide. And while I believe that the vote
fraud this election was massive, in the Philly mental wards, it
would be apparent not in percentage of votes won, but in percentage
of turnout. Philly.com reports that this was 60 percent citywide,
but it provides no data for the wards in question.
Whatever the case, most people put a happy face on such monolithic
support. For example, Professor Miller said, "Ninety-nine percent
is extraordinary, and it shows discipline as much as anything
else." Discipline? So that's what they call it now. I have a
different word.
Prejudice.
If 95-plus percent of whites had voted for Romney, would anyone
characterize it as a matter of "discipline"? Why, even though
whites favored the Republican by only 60 percent, their failure to
split an even 50/50 is still thought cause to place the focus on
them. For instance, this National Journal piece on the racial
divide contrasts the actual Nov. 6 electoral map with how it would
look had only whites voted and shows that Romney would have
captured eight more states and hence the election. What isn't
shown is that if only blacks voted, Obama would have won every
state.
The reason for this is as simple as it is rarely spoken. As black
Tea Party star Lloyd Marcus put it, blacks' monolithic support for
Obama is attributable to "racism and loyalty to The Black Code
(never side with a white against a fellow black)."
Here many will point out that blacks typically vote Democrat
approximately 95 percent of the time and that they support black
Republicans little more than white ones? Yet this argument fails.
First, it's clear that most blacks have a prejudice against the
Republican Party itself (as some whites do) and refuse to even give
its platform a fair hearing. Second, they have this bias primarily
because they see the Republicans as the "white party" and dismiss,
out of hand, the blacks within it as Uncle Toms.
If this isn't enough to convince skeptics that racial prejudice is
the issue, I submit as Exhibit A the 2008 Democrat primaries.
During their early stages, blacks joined most other Democrats in
supporting Hillary Clinton. Yet when Obama's star began to rise,
they flocked to him, often offering support by a 9-to-1 margin.
This, despite the fact that the two candidates' positions were
virtually identical.
This is why I just shake my head when people say that Republicans
are losing minorities because they're not "reaching out." This is
a nebulous term that purports to explain something while explaining
nothing, much as if you tell someone who is depressed that he needs
"self-actualization." It's hard for the GOP to reach out and reach
people when, owing to prejudice, they assume that the "R" after a
candidate's name stands for "Racist."
If black people such as Lloyd Marcus, Alan Keyes, Walter Williams,
Thomas Sowell, and Jesse Lee Peterson can't make any headway with
blacks, what kind of chance do you think white Republicans will
stand?
Instead of implying that we should "reach out" -- a euphemism for
"pander" -- we'd be better off treating blacks the same as we do
whites.
Call them out when they're bigoted.
Even if it didn't win any more converts, it at least might win
respect. After all, people don't respect someone who is too
stupid, too afraid, or too dishonest to tell them the truth.
Continues:..."
Rispondi citando Condividi su facebook
Links Sponsorizzati
Advertisement
Rispondi


Strumenti discussione Cerca in questa discussione
Cerca in questa discussione:

Ricerca avanzata
ModalitÓ visualizzazione

Regole di scrittura
Tu non puoi inserire nuovi messaggi
Tu non puoi rispondere ai messaggi
Tu non puoi inviare files
Tu non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi

Il codice vB Ŕ Disattivato
Le faccine sono Attivato
Il codice [IMG] Ŕ Disattivato
Il codice HTML Ŕ Disattivato
Vai al forum


Tutti gli orari sono GMT +2. Adesso sono le 17.51.12.


www.ForumViaggiare.com
Ad Management by RedTyger