Professional restaurant supplies Spring Reading 2016 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Subscribe & Save Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer bschs2 bschs2 bschs2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Shop Now May4th
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

If it's racist to vote against Obama because He's black....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 125 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 1:27:29 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[If representives of a party frequently called my race ill informed, I'd question if it was the right party for me. ]

I think people need to get into the habit of not allowing knee jerk reactions based on their initial dislike of comments. It would be better for all around to actually see what the basis of the comments comes from. You should also work to take the comment in the best light possible, rather then jump to the conclusion that it was an insult directed at you. (I have had experience with people who take comments in absolutely the worst light possible, and no one can change their mind as to the contrary.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 1:29:29 PM PDT
I honestly don't know how to take the statement that black people are ill-informed in the "best light possible."

If it makes you feel better, I am also concerned when people claim that poor white people who vote Republican are voting that way because they're uninformed.

I think it's a cop-out to say that people who don't agree with us politically just aren't as smart as we are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 1:34:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 1:35:45 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[I honestly don't know how to take the statement that black people are ill-informed in the "best light possible."]

It should be made that these people should read the planks of the republican platform, and not just take propaganda at face value. I doubt there are more then a handful of black voters even informed themselves of what the foundation of the republican party is based on. It's not slavery, it is individual empowerment. It is not class warfare, but respect of each person's property. It's not racism, its about being raceless.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 1:38:35 PM PDT
The average voter isn't that well informed. Why the desire to single out black people?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:26:11 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[The average voter isn't that well informed. Why the desire to single out black people? ]

That is sad, but very true that the average voter is not well informed. It should be true that there should be no racial distinction in parties. On the other hand, if you look at Blacks, for some reason, they overwhelmingly support Democrats. Why is that, when no other group has that much of a distinction?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:30:40 PM PDT
I don't know. There are probably polls or surveys out there documenting it, but I don't think I've read any.

I do think that when Republicans say things like "black people vote Democratic because they're ill informed," it probably doesn't appeal to many potential voters. Insulting voters is a non-starter as a political technique.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:38:52 PM PDT
I just found an interesting article on factcheck.org about it. It says that the Democratic Party became the choice of the majority of black people with Truman in 1948 (he had desegregated the Armed Forces and ended racial bias in federal hiring) and the numbers only went up from there. Since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Goldwater opposed it, no Republican has gotten more than 15% of the black vote in a presidential election.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:45:08 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
That tends to be a problem. The Civil Rights Amendment doesn't do what many people think it does. I think it was just that Republicans see the 'Act' as being outside the scope of the federal government. Democrats don't care how much power the federal government has, as long as it is for their benefit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:45:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 2:47:49 PM PDT
A Customer says:
If his name was Barry O'Brien, and he was some white guy running in the democratic Primary in '08 with the exact same empty resume, same lack of political accomplishments, same lack of business career, same everything except the pigment of his skin, he would have finished somewhere behind Dennis Kucinich with about 1% of the vote.

It's the awkward little fact that no one's allowed to talk about.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:49:30 PM PDT
Without getting into a whole discussion about the Civil Rights Act (because we've had it before and neither of us is likely to change our mind), it's surely understandable why people who were sometimes unable to vote or get a sandwich at a lunch counter might favor the party who nominated the guy who signed it over the party who nominated a guy who was against it.

I think black people at the time were very aware of what the Civil Rights Act did. I know you think it's unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that black people don't understand it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:50:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 2:50:21 PM PDT
What do you mean you're not allowed to talk about it? It is brought up in this forum several times a day.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:52:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 2:53:42 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
Yes, and it's a sad thing that they only look at the title of the act and not what the result was. (What it cost them)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:54:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 2:55:22 PM PDT
Why do you feel that "they" only looked at the title and not the result?

Just because somebody disagrees with you on the merits of the Civil Rights Act doesn't mean they failed to look beyond the title.

Edit: In response to your edit -- maybe they disagree with you on the costs, especially compared to how life was for many black people before the Civil Rights Act?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 2:56:30 PM PDT
A Customer says:
Here you can get away with it, because we're nobodies here. If someone in the mainstream media pointed it out he would be branded a "racist" and probably see his career distroyed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:00:05 PM PDT
It's totally possible that if a white Senator ran for president with Obama's resume he would lose. There are a lot of hard to quantify factors in politics and it doesn't seem like the media offers speculation about a whole lot of them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:01:56 PM PDT
A Customer says:
Thank you for your honesty

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:02:14 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
What it (the Civil Rights Acts) cost them was self respect. I believe that is part of the the seed of the problems they have right now when it comes to dropping out of school and unemployment. Many believe they are entitled to an equal share of the pie, regardless if they had a part of doing the work for it. That sense of entitlement makes the realization that the real world doesn't see it the same way to give a sense of bitterness.

The world would be better off not to look at color of skin a person was born into. The law shouldn't be part of forcing people to relate to each other, in any form.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:08:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 3:08:26 PM PDT
But some black people can (and some do) disagree with your belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cost black people self-respect. That doesn't make them ill-informed. It means they have a different opinion.

Being able to stay at a hotel or cast a ballot has nothing to do with telling people they're entitled for an equal share of the pie, regardless of how hard they work.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:18:34 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[Being able to stay at a hotel or cast a ballot has nothing to do with telling people they're entitled for an equal share of the pie, regardless of how hard they work. ]

In a way, it does. Blacks could open up businesses just as whites could. It was only under a minority of places where laws prevented black people from getting into certain places. They should have voted with their feet to places of more accepting climate.

Don't give me the bit about a place should accept anyone. America was built on people who voted with their feet to a better place. It originated on it, and it is still that way for the influx of immigrants.

The blacks lost a lot of respect when people saw that they were getting into medical school, not because they were qualified for it educationally, but only because the school were required by law to racially accept students based on the census. That sort of thing makes a lot of bad will that even today hasn't completely gone away.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:24:34 PM PDT
Laws impacting medical schools would never make me lose respect for black people. It just doesn't logically follow.

Look, it's perfectly clear that you don't care for the Civil Rights Act. I know how you feel about it and I'm not particularly interested in debating it with you again. You shouldn't let your animosity towards it keep you from seeing how much more appealing the party that nominated the man who signed it would be for the majority of black people, especially considering that the Republicans nominated an opponent of the Act that year.

People can disagree with you without being ill-informed. That's the main point I'm trying to make here. A black voter who votes Democratic may simply have an understanding of self-respect that doesn't include having to explain to their children why they can't go to a movie at the only theatre in town.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:29:09 PM PDT
Bookgirl says:
I'm not voting for him because he's half white. That really irritates me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:32:10 PM PDT
Shain Edge says:
OK, they can disagree with me without being ill informed. You were the one who brought up the Civil Rights act. I'm just stating that it's done its part for the past, and it should be removed as a law today. It has no applicability to modern day. Blacks who vote based only on that act fifty+years ago without seeing what the party has been using them since, I feel, is a lack of being informed of modern political society. Because, if you go back even further, it was the democrats that were the ones who were the Jim Crow proponents.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 3:34:32 PM PDT
I brought it up in the context of the Factcheck.org article mentioning it as a factor in black Americans supporting the Democrats, not so that we could debate if it was a good thing for America or not.

I don't think black people who vote Democratic are voting based "only" on that -- I just mentioned the article because you were acting as if you were honestly curious about it.

I'm not trying to cut you off about the Civil Rights Act, I just don't think the odds of us having a productive dialogue about it are very high.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 6:58:21 AM PDT
"Most of us don't think there are only two sides. That's your blind spot"

^^^

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 11:45:36 AM PDT
Zap!!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3411 7 days ago
And the Winner is™ ... Eight is Enough -- Or Is It? 9481 17 seconds ago
Fear is the mind killer 79 20 seconds ago
No form of socialism has ever worked at any time or in any place. 565 2 minutes ago
Would anybody care if we gave California back to Mexico? 41 2 minutes ago
What's the first thing you think of when you hear ''Donald Trump and Condoleezza Rice''? 1 4 minutes ago
Dan Berrigan died 56 5 minutes ago
Our government permits Nestlé to suck 25 million gallons of water out of the drought stricken San Bernardino National Forest to sell at an enormous profit and we charge them $524 per year! 17 5 minutes ago
Trump's Protesters? Recruited and Paid by Soros and Killary 26 6 minutes ago
The 1940s and the 1950s Are A Myth? Tell THEM That, Liberals! 1301 7 minutes ago
Are Women inherently unable to match wits with Men without resorting to using sex as a weapon? 36 9 minutes ago
Does Amazon deleted whole posts as my post is gone? 56 14 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  125
Initial post:  Jun 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions