quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:


No...Many WOMEN will feel cheated if Hilary loses. They will feel that a biased male media and nation gave the election to Obama. You cannot simply look at this one way. There are passions on both sides that will create problems in the end.



Which women? How many have you spoken with about their feelings post-election? Did you totally disregard the previously posted article about Why Liberal Women Don't Like Hillary when you were spouting off similar nonsense in a previous thread?

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m...681058264#4681058264

How many women have been observed speaking about a "biased male media" with respect to the campaign, especially given that Hillary can shed tears and reel in votes?

YOu have no clue what you are talking about. Shut up.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:


No...Many WOMEN will feel cheated if Hilary loses. They will feel that a biased male media and nation gave the election to Obama. You cannot simply look at this one way. There are passions on both sides that will create problems in the end.



Which women? How many have you spoken with about their feelings post-election? Did you totally disregard the previously posted article about Why Liberal Women Don't Like Hillary when you were spouting off similar nonsense in a previous thread? How many women have been observed speaking about a "biased male media" with respect to the campaign, especially given that Hillary can shed tears and reel in votes?

YOu have no clue what you are talking about. Shut up.


If you think hearing about liberal women speaking against Hillary is something you should hear what the conservative women are saying. They want to give in to the traditional leadership of a man. There goes another sector of would be, supposed to be affinitive support for Hillary. 20
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton. Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.


Why should Obama get the super delegates if he cannot win the battleground States when the goal of the party is to have the canidate with the best chance of winning be the nomination?




The False Assumptions In the "Electability" Arguments

David Sirota

March 9, 2008 1:45 PM


It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning - especially when it comes to the so-called "electability" argument.

The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:
quote:

"She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well."

Let's put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland - a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let's just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this "electability" claim.

Assumption 1: The Map Can Never Dramatically Change

The first assumption relates to the topography of the national electoral map. In talking about states that are "significant" and "insignificant" based on how they voted in previous elections, the Clinton campaign is assuming the basic map of the last 16 years automatically has to stay the same, and that there cannot be a map-changing candidate. This argument comes despite periodic elections in our history that have seen such shifts. For example, take a look at this animated image derived from Wikipedia's maps - it shows how the national political map changed between the 1976 election and the 1980 election (note - on the maps, Dems are blue and Republicans are red).



Yes, those parts flashing between red and blue are the regions of the country that shifted in just one election cycle. Perhaps even more relevant to the Clinton argument today is the map change between 1988 and 1992 - the year that one Bill Clinton benefited from a major map change:



So, in other words, Hillary Clinton - the person who became First Lady because of a major map change - is nonetheless arguing the map can never change, and her campaign is making such an argument at the very moment one of history's most unpopular president is atop the Republican Party. The logic is positively ridiculous.

Assumption 2: Primary and Caucus Victories Directly Relate to General-Election Viability

The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's "electability" argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election.

This rationale makes positively no sense at all, because it suggests that Obama in a general would do worse than Clinton in already Democratic states - and there's no proof of that. Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.

In fact, looking at what evidence we do have - general election matchup polls - we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton. Though the polls show Obama losing Florida, New Jersey and Arkansas where Clinton would win, it shows Obama winning Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota and Michigan where Clinton would lose (the latter of which the Clinton campaign continues to hilariously insist it "won" in the primary, despite no other major candidate being on the Michigan ballot).

The differences, of course, go back to the underlying argument about maps. Right now, polls show Obama picks up electoral votes in states that the Clinton surrogates say "don't matter [because] we're not going to carry those states." And what's particularly absurd about the Clinton campaign making this argument is that former President Bill Clinton is insisting that in a general election Hillary Clinton can win back "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president." In other words, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the map has to remain the same as it has been for two decades - with the same states in play and not in play - at the same time they argue that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win back Reagan Democrats that created that map in the first place.

I never thought I'd see the day when someone could say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton was the Democrats' best candidate to win back the Reagan Democrats alienated from the Democratic Party by, among other things, a job-killing lobbyist-written trade policy that Hillary Clinton championed for a decade. It's just a ridiculous assertion on its face - and it's even more ridiculous when you look at what evidence we have, which is current public opinion polls.

More generally, the attempt to cite the geography of primary wins as proof of general election viability is straight-up silly. And yet, the whole meme has bled into almost every analysis of what is going on in the race. As I said to start, the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning.

David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.


http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_false_...ptions_in_the_e.html
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton. Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.


Why should Obama get the super delegates if he cannot win the battleground States when the goal of the party is to have the canidate with the best chance of winning be the nomination?




The False Assumptions In the "Electability" Arguments

David Sirota

March 9, 2008 1:45 PM


It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning - especially when it comes to the so-called "electability" argument.

The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:
quote:

"She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well."

Let's put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland - a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let's just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this "electability" claim.

Assumption 1: The Map Can Never Dramatically Change

The first assumption relates to the topography of the national electoral map. In talking about states that are "significant" and "insignificant" based on how they voted in previous elections, the Clinton campaign is assuming the basic map of the last 16 years automatically has to stay the same, and that there cannot be a map-changing candidate. This argument comes despite periodic elections in our history that have seen such shifts. For example, take a look at this animated image derived from Wikipedia's maps - it shows how the national political map changed between the 1976 election and the 1980 election (note - on the maps, Dems are blue and Republicans are red).



Yes, those parts flashing between red and blue are the regions of the country that shifted in just one election cycle. Perhaps even more relevant to the Clinton argument today is the map change between 1988 and 1992 - the year that one Bill Clinton benefited from a major map change:



So, in other words, Hillary Clinton - the person who became First Lady because of a major map change - is nonetheless arguing the map can never change, and her campaign is making such an argument at the very moment one of history's most unpopular president is atop the Republican Party. The logic is positively ridiculous.

Assumption 2: Primary and Caucus Victories Directly Relate to General-Election Viability

The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's "electability" argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election.

This rationale makes positively no sense at all, because it suggests that Obama in a general would do worse than Clinton in already Democratic states - and there's no proof of that. Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.

In fact, looking at what evidence we do have - general election matchup polls - we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton. Though the polls show Obama losing Florida, New Jersey and Arkansas where Clinton would win, it shows Obama winning Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota and Michigan where Clinton would lose (the latter of which the Clinton campaign continues to hilariously insist it "won" in the primary, despite no other major candidate being on the Michigan ballot).

The differences, of course, go back to the underlying argument about maps. Right now, polls show Obama picks up electoral votes in states that the Clinton surrogates say "don't matter [because] we're not going to carry those states." And what's particularly absurd about the Clinton campaign making this argument is that former President Bill Clinton is insisting that in a general election Hillary Clinton can win back "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president." In other words, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the map has to remain the same as it has been for two decades - with the same states in play and not in play - at the same time they argue that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win back Reagan Democrats that created that map in the first place.

I never thought I'd see the day when someone could say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton was the Democrats' best candidate to win back the Reagan Democrats alienated from the Democratic Party by, among other things, a job-killing lobbyist-written trade policy that Hillary Clinton championed for a decade. It's just a ridiculous assertion on its face - and it's even more ridiculous when you look at what evidence we have, which is current public opinion polls.

More generally, the attempt to cite the geography of primary wins as proof of general election viability is straight-up silly. And yet, the whole meme has bled into almost every analysis of what is going on in the race. As I said to start, the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning.

David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.


http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_false_...ptions_in_the_e.html


Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were/are Southern White Males....It has generally taken a Southern white male to do well in the South. The only democrats to be President since Kennedy has been Southern white males. A Yankee Women or a Yankee Negro is not likely to win the South....Although Clinton might win Arkansas.

The author obviously failed to factor in regionalism. This is why I thought Edwards should have been the Dems Canidate....he has the message, platform and he is a Southern white male. The powers that be killed his campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
First of all I have made a conscientious decision to not participate with my vote in the political process. I think the whole two party system is akin to the old agrarian based school year. Times have changed and the system needs to change. Moreover, for me economics is far more important than politics and there is no substantive economic difference between republicans and democrats. Thirdly, on to the topic of Obama, as someone noted, the reasoning is sound. Clinton is the better candidate based upon key battleground States.


Hello! Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are democracts running in a two-party system. So I ask you AGAIN, if a two party system is obsolete and you've made a conscientious decision not to participate in this system (at least you think you're not participating), then why are you so much interested in who has a better chance at winning? As a Pan Africanist, why do/should you even care?

Like most people who've mentally isolated themselves in this way, I think you're against Obama because you oppose Black people putting their faith and confidence in a person (and a system) that you feel is not African centered. It's not about Obama or Hilary being a better candidate or having a better chance at winning. As you've said earlier, you could care less - you don't vote. It's about Obama, a likely candidate for the first Black American president not being "Black enough" to meet your standards of cultural consciousness. All these other arguments are a farce. That much has been clear to me all along. I just think that you should have been honest and forthcoming with readers about your views right from the beginning.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
First of all I have made a conscientious decision to not participate with my vote in the political process. I think the whole two party system is akin to the old agrarian based school year. Times have changed and the system needs to change. Moreover, for me economics is far more important than politics and there is no substantive economic difference between republicans and democrats. Thirdly, on to the topic of Obama, as someone noted, the reasoning is sound. Clinton is the better candidate based upon key battleground States.


Hello! Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are democracts running in a two-party system. So I ask you AGAIN, if a two party system is obsolete and you've made a conscientious decision not to participate in this system (at least you think you're not participating), then why are you so much interested in who has a better chance at winning? As a Pan Africanist, why do/should you even care?

Like most people who've mentally isolated themselves in this way, I think you're against Obama because you oppose Black people putting their faith and confidence in a person (and a system) that you feel is not African centered. It's not about Obama or Hilary being a better candidate or having a better chance at winning. As you've said earlier, you could care less - you don't vote. It's about Obama, a likely candidate for the first Black American president, not being "Black enough" to meet your standards of cultural consciousness. All these other arguments are a farce. That much has been clear to me all along. I just think that you should have been honest and forthcoming with readers about your views right from the beginning.


If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.

I am against Obama because I don't think he can beat the Republicans. I am against Obama because if he could win, he will inherit an economy about the collapse and the president that sits in office during the collapse will get the blame....and I don't want that to befall a black person. If Obama could become president, he will put a black face on US imperialism and world evil and transpose that dislike to African Americans, who once had international respect as not part and parcel to our nation's evils. I also don't want it rationalized that racial policies needs to be eliminated because a black president demonstrates the nation has moved past its racist past.....ect....ect.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were/are Southern White Males....It has generally taken a Southern white male to do well in the South. The only democrats to be President since Kennedy has been Southern white males. A Yankee Women or a Yankee Negro is not likely to win the South....Although Clinton might win Arkansas.

You're tripping over yourself again, Noah. Your question in the OP was in regards to the electability of Hillary vs. Barack. There's no White male in the equation. The article HB posted speaks directly to the question you asked.

You've made several assumptions of the passed few weeks regarding Hillary's electability over Barack's, but have yet to provide even a sliver of supportive evidence. What's more, you keep muddling yourself by framing a question one way (i.e. Why support Barack when Hillary is more electable?) then throwing in irrelevant factors (i.e. niether Barack nor Hillary can win the South). If (in your opinion) neither one of them can win the South, in what way does that piece of information translate into Hillary being more electable?

Besides, your assumption that neither of them can win significant enough gains in the South to swing the general election is based on nothing.

A) Southern states have gone Democratic before, and recently, mostly due to the popularity of the candidate (Bill Clinton).

B) Liberal states have gone Republican before, and recently, mostly due to the popularity of the candidate (Ronald Reagan).

C) There are huge concentrated voting blocks of African Americans and Hispanics in the South that consistantly vote Democratic, and there are even more who would vote Democratic... if they thought a left-leaning vote had a snowball's chance in making a difference. Both Barack and Hillary are driving out the vote in the South at unprecidented levels.

D) There is a whole generation of new voters in play all over the country (including the South) most of whom aren't even blinking in McCain's direction.
quote:
which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton.


I do not see how you could possibly come up with a trustworthy answer to that. It would just be someone's guess about psychological nonsense.

um
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were/are Southern White Males....It has generally taken a Southern white male to do well in the South. The only democrats to be President since Kennedy has been Southern white males. A Yankee Women or a Yankee Negro is not likely to win the South....Although Clinton might win Arkansas.

You're tripping over yourself again, Noah. Your question in the OP was in regards to the electability of Hillary vs. Barack. There's no White male in the equation. The article HB posted speaks directly to the question you asked.

You've made several assumptions of the passed few weeks regarding Hillary's electability over Barack's, but have yet to provide even a sliver of supportive evidence. What's more, you keep muddling yourself by framing a question one way (i.e. Why support Barack when Hillary is more electable?) then throwing in irrelevant factors (i.e. niether Barack nor Hillary can win the South). If (in your opinion) neither one of them can win the South, in what way does that piece of information translate into Hillary being more electable?

Besides, your assumption that neither of them can win significant enough gains in the South to swing the general election is based on nothing.

A) Southern states have gone Democratic before, and recently, mostly due to the popularity of the candidate (Bill Clinton).

B) Liberal states have gone Republican before, and recently, mostly due to the popularity of the candidate (Ronald Reagan).

C) There are huge concentrated voting blocks of African Americans and Hispanics in the South that consistantly vote Democratic, and there are even more who would vote Democratic... if they thought a left-leaning vote had a snowball's chance in making a difference. Both Barack and Hillary are driving out the vote in the South at unprecidented levels.

D) There is a whole generation of new voters in play all over the country (including the South) most of whom aren't even blinking in McCain's direction.


With all do respect I do not understand what you are talking about. The electability that I am talking about is the general election. Many candidates who proved electable for their party did not prove electable for the nation in the General election. Democratic Presidents Johnson, Carter and Clinton were all Southern and white Southerners are biased for Southerners, like whites are biased towards whites, blacks toward blacks and women towards women. Given the role that these biases play in the elections, the map presented CLEARLY shows a southern bias toward southern white males. Everything happens for a reason and simply showing maps that demonstrate that Southern States sometimes have gone Blue conveniently ignores the reason why they did. That reason does not apply toward Obama. Clinton was popular in the South because he was SOUTHERN....just like CARTER....remember the map showed Jimmy Carter won some Southern States too. It's there SOUTHERN POPULARITY!!! What percent of the white vote is Obama winning in the South?

Reagan was popular because he made white folks feel good about themselves. He talked about welfare queens and attacked social policy that whites did not like because it eroded white privilege in their minds. The only way you are going to be a really popular president among whites is to cater to white folk's mentality concerning issues. When that happens then it usually means something negative for black folk. So If Obama is to become this popular Icon figure for white folks, it going to come from emulating their mentality on issues. It is certainly not going to come from emulating the black mentality unless it is the black mentality that has assimilated to the white mentality....like the assimilationist mentality of most Negroes on this forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
With all do respect I do not understand what you are talking about. The electability that I am talking about is the general election. Many candidates who proved electable for their party did not prove electable for the nation in the General election.

You said...
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton.

There is no White Southern Male in this equation.

So please explain how you think the impact of a Southern White Male has anything to do with the electability of one of these candidates vs. the other (i.e. which one of them is more likely to win the general election).

quote:
Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.

This entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the map never changes. Per HB's article... it very clearly has and does change.

On the other hand, I can just as confidently predict that Obama has a better chance of winning Wyoming in the general election than Hillary has of winning Ohio. The bitter "battle-ground" state of Ohio will bleed red when conservatives come out in force to keep her out of the White house. But, since they have little love for McCain, they're more that likely to just stay home if Obama's running against him.

quote:
What percent of the white vote is Obama winning in the South?

What percent is Hillary getting?

quote:
Reagan was popular because he made white folks feel good about themselves.

Ironically... so does Obama.

quote:
It is certainly not going to come from emulating the black mentality unless it is the black mentality that has assimilated to the white mentality....like the assimilationist mentality of most Negroes on this forum.

sleep
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
With all do respect I do not understand what you are talking about. The electability that I am talking about is the general election. Many candidates who proved electable for their party did not prove electable for the nation in the General election.

You said...
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton.

There is no White Southern Male in this equation.

So please explain how you think the impact of a Southern White Male has anything to do with the electability of one of these candidates vs. the other (i.e. which one of them is more likely to win the general election).

quote:
Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.

This entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the map never changes. Per HB's article... it very clearly has and does change.

On the other hand, I can just as confidently predict that Obama has a better chance of winning Wyoming in the general election than Hillary has of winning Ohio. The bitter "battle-ground" state of Ohio will bleed red when conservatives come out in force to keep her out of the White house. But, since they have little love for McCain, they're more that likely to just stay home if Obama's running against him.

quote:
What percent of the white vote is Obama winning in the South?

What percent is Hillary getting?

quote:
Reagan was popular because he made white folks feel good about themselves.

Ironically... so does Obama.

quote:
It is certainly not going to come from emulating the black mentality unless it is the black mentality that has assimilated to the white mentality....like the assimilationist mentality of most Negroes on this forum.

sleep


The issue is how did states that normally vote Republican, over the last 25 years, go Democratic. The answer to that question was the southern white male Democrat. The vast majority of whites in the South are Republican. So the question becomes what causes southern moderate white Republicans to vote Democrat and the answer historically has been Southern white male democrats. So as long as McCain is a Republican and white, he has the vote of most white Southerners. Remember that Obama has not been winning the white majority in the South of the Democratic voters....but he wins the white majority in places like Utah and Wyoming and other white states. The South has a long history of racial divisions and some of the white democrats who voted for Clinton may have done so because she was white and Obama was black and in the General election they may choose McCain because he is white also.

My argument was not predicated upon the assumption that the map never changes. That is a straw man fallacy. My argument is predicated upon the REASONS WHY THE MAP CHANGES AND THOSE REASONS NOT BEING AT PLAY IN THIS ELECTION.

Moreover, where is the proof that Republicans are going to come out in force to vote against Hilary? Of course that has been speculated....but there is no demonstrable proof of that. Republicans are usually diligent voters anyway in the general election. They have always come out to vote against liberals.

Hilary is winning the majority of the white democrat vote in the South while Obama is winning the overwhelming majority of the black vote in the South. The vast majority of whites in the south are Republican and the minority of whites who are Democrats sides with Clinton.
Noah,

I see what you are saying. There has been a mass defection amongst white males in the south but the women, youth and black vote may still carry Obama. I know what you mean by the past history of the south but personally I am surprised the southern whites did not take the white chick over the black dude because they are all still white....that is an anomaly for real.....but white males could be mistakenly supporting Obama because they may harbor the belief that white males will rally to vote against a black more than another white.....just a thought....
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

My argument was not predicated upon the assumption that the map never changes.



Yes it was.

quote:

My argument is predicated upon the REASONS WHY THE MAP CHANGES AND THOSE REASONS NOT BEING AT PLAY IN THIS ELECTION.


The reasons????

Do you know something about historical processes that we don't that you can so confidently assert (in an unprecedented election season) what will happen AND why based on only two historical instances (Carter and Clinton presumably)?

You said:

quote:

No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton. Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.


Why should Obama get the super delegates if he cannot win the battleground States when the goal of the party is to have the canidate with the best chance of winning be the nomination?



EVERYTHING in your post is predicated upon the assumption that the electoral map will look exactly the same as it has for the last 20 years.

Moreover there was no mention of southern white males in the framing of the question.

And lastly there are no immutable laws of history (of which I'm aware) to which we can appeal to claim that the ONLY way the map can possibly change is that a southern white male is the Democratic nominee.

You can only appeal to two instances in history. And two examples are not enough instances from which to draw such sweeping conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

My argument was not predicated upon the assumption that the map never changes.



Yes it was.

quote:

My argument is predicated upon the REASONS WHY THE MAP CHANGES AND THOSE REASONS NOT BEING AT PLAY IN THIS ELECTION.


The reasons????

Do you know something about historical processes that we don't that you can so confidently assert (in an unprecedented election season) what will happen AND why based on only two historical instances (Carter and Clinton presumably)?

You said:

quote:

No one has yet to answer the question I presented concerning which candidate has the best chance in November, Obama or Clinton. Why should a delegate and popular vote lead by Obama outweigh that Clinton does much better than Obama in the states the normally decide elections? For example, Obama won another Red State, Wyoming, today. He will NEVER win Wyoming in the general election. Yet, it increases his delegate lead over Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton wins the KEY state of Ohio pretty comfortably. In fact, every major and most minor battleground states Clinton has won. Obama has racked up a lot of delegates in states that will vote Republican in the General election.


Why should Obama get the super delegates if he cannot win the battleground States when the goal of the party is to have the canidate with the best chance of winning be the nomination?



EVERYTHING in your post is predicated upon the assumption that the electoral map will look exactly the same as it has for the last 20 years.

Moreover there was no mention of southern white males in the framing of the question.

And lastly there are no immutable laws of history (of which I'm aware) to which we can appeal to claim that the ONLY way the map can possibly change is that a southern white male is the Democratic nominee.

You can only appeal to two instances in history. And two examples are not enough instances from which to draw such sweeping conclusions.


You misunderestimate the great analytic and computational powers of Hari Seldon...er, I mean Noah the African, in the field of psychohistory.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m...581099264#5581099264
I can accept your interpreting my statement as to imply that the map never changes. That's cool. That was never imbedded in my reasoning, if not your interpretation. I knew the history of Southern Democratic Governors running for president and carrying their Southern state, which normally vote Republican in National elections.

I do not subscribe to the theory of happenstance. Everything happens for a REASON. Every action is a reaction to something else. Nothing just happens. It seems to me that you are arguing that sh1t just happens without reasons and that this is somehow an unprecedented, if not unpredictable, elections cycle. The only things that are unpredictable are things that are not understandable. What is it that defies understanding about this election cycle?

What is in it for Southern whites to vote for Obama? When did Southern whites and blacks get on the same page politically? What I cannot reconcile is how two diametrically opposed groups, in many respects, will ever be on the same page politically. It does not make any sense that the white majority would rally to a political candidate that blacks are also rallying to. That would suggest that there is no racial division of substance in America any longer. If Obama is that neutral candidate with cross appeal, that would mean neither extreme, will be addressed. Of course, ignoring the racist right extreme of whites is desirable but ignoring the extreme problems of inequality among poor black folks is unacceptable. There needs to be policies and programs targeting these communities, but whites will resist such policies as favoring blacks. So for Obama to have cross appeal among blacks and whites, both interests will have to be sold out to a degree and likely a larger degree among blacks. Why? That is because there are proportionately a lot more whites than blacks and the viability of an Obama presidency is more dependent upon whites that blacks.



WASHINGTON, March 7 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sways more votes than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in the competition for crossover support, a survey indicated.

A Pew Research Center survey found that approximately 14 percent of Democrats claimed they would support McCain instead of Obama, compared to the 8 percent of Republicans who said they would support Obama, The Washington Times reported Friday.

"McCain poses a clear and present danger to Obama in that he draws Democrat base support in historic numbers," Republican strategist Scott Reed said.

Twenty percent of white Democratic voters said they would support McCain if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, which is twice the number who said they would change party support if Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., became the party's nominee, the survey said.



http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/07/mccain...rossover_votes/2868/
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Define supporter. I am not voting for her or anyone.


Then why are you so interested in this year's election, and who wins it? Why do you even care who has a "better chance" at winning if you're not voting anyway? Your position is tantamount to saying that you don't care about who wins a basketball game, yet people see you appearing at every game. Frankly, I'm sick of this game that you're playing with the forum. Every time I come into the Issues/Politics forum, I see your name beside an anti-Obama thread. Then when someone calls you on your weak arguments, you don't ever address them, you just run away and post another one. Are you crazy or something? This is ridiculous. I can't believe people are still entertaining your inquiries. I peeped what you were doing a while ago. Like the child in class who wants to be "special" and defiantly refuses to do anthying the other kids are doing, it's as if you're posting these threads just to get attention.

It's very immature and unproductive.

td6


20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Not only is he anti-Obama he's pro-Clinton yet anti-democrat as he keeps restating the democrats are doomed, which implies he's all for McCain yet he doesn't acknowledge that McCain is struggling to stay in the spotlight even within his own party yet Noah the Freed Slave isn't voting for anyone.

spam spam spam spam spam spam
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
What is in it for Southern whites to vote for Obama? When did Southern whites and blacks get on the same page politically? What I cannot reconcile is how two diametrically opposed groups, in many respects, will ever be on the same page politically.


That is because you continue to evaluate this year's election from the narrow perspective of race. It's preventing you from considering issues that deeply concern all Americans. A rising number of Americans (Black and White) cannot afford to live in their homes, they cannot afford the rising cost of transportation and gas, they want a better public school system for their children and they want the cost to send them to college to decrease, they want affordable health care and they want to lessen their dependence on medications and drugs, they want to protect and preserve the enviornment for future generations, and they want to end a seemingly never-ending war. Though these, THESE are issue that you should be focusing on in terms of who is the best candidate to address these issues, apparently, these issues are irrelevant to you. From your narrowly-focused perspective, this year's election is just about race and a conflict between Black people and White people. And a Black person should never be the president of the US, because Black people should maintain their marginalized status in this country, and we should take on "White people's problems." We should remain on the peripheral outskirts of this society and not participate in anything unless it only affects OUR comunity. That way, we can contintue to complain about racism and continue to complain about not being given a chance. That's what we're used to doing, so let's remain in our cozy little comfort zone, and continue with business as usual. Roll Eyes
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
First of all I have made a conscientious decision to not participate with my vote in the political process. I think the whole two party system is akin to the old agrarian based school year. Times have changed and the system needs to change. Moreover, for me economics is far more important than politics and there is no substantive economic difference between republicans and democrats.


Hello! Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are democracts running in a two-party system. So I ask you AGAIN, if a two party system is obsolete and you've made a conscientious decision not to participate in this system (at least you think you're not participating), then why are you so much interested in who has a better chance at winning? As a Pan Africanist, why do/should you even care?

Like most people who've mentally isolated themselves in this way, I think you're against Obama because you oppose Black people putting their faith and confidence in a person (and a system) that you feel is not African centered. It's not about Obama or Hilary being a better candidate or having a better chance at winning. As you've said earlier, you could care less - you don't vote. It's about Obama, a likely candidate for the first Black American president, not being "Black enough" to meet your standards of cultural consciousness. All these other arguments are a farce. That much has been clear to me all along. I just think that you should have been honest and forthcoming with readers about your views right from the beginning.


If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.

I am against Obama because I don't think he can beat the Republicans. I am against Obama because if he could win, he will inherit an economy about the collapse and the president that sits in office during the collapse will get the blame....and I don't want that to befall a black person. If Obama could become president, he will put a black face on US imperialism and world evil and transpose that dislike to African Americans, who once had international respect as not part and parcel to our nation's evils. I also don't want it rationalized that racial policies needs to be eliminated because a black president demonstrates the nation has moved past its racist past.....ect....ect.



I agree with the points made above... well stated...
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that someone who has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things?

Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable?

Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge?

Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?

Are you asserting that when one is making a point or argument there is no experience needed? That having a practical and working knowledge and experience in something doesnt help your position in anyway? Particularly when talking to someone who does?
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that if someone has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things? Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable? Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge? Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?


By this logic... unless you have run office shouldn't you never speak of politics...

just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that if someone has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things? Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable? Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge? Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?


By this logic... unless you have run office shouldn't you never speak of politics...

just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


thanks
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that if someone has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things? Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable? Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge? Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?


By this logic... unless you have run office shouldn't you never speak of politics...

just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


Clearly as evident on this board one can speak about anything that moves them.

Not my point. And the question still wasnt answered about the assertion.

"If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays?"

Surely YOU can! That doesnt mean that YOU know what YOU are talking about. Particularly when talking to someone who has.
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that if someone has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things? Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable? Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge? Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?


By this logic... unless you have run office shouldn't you never speak of politics...

just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


Clearly as evident on this board one can speak about anything that moves them.

Not my point. And the question still wasnt answered about the assertion.

"If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays?"

Surely YOU can! That doesnt mean that YOU know what YOU are talking about. Particularly when talking to someone who has.


Well if that is the case a person who has never been president should not be running for president because when they make assertions about what they can acomplish...they don't really know what the hell they are talking about. Hence....why do you support anyone for president who has never been president and therefore have no way of knowing what the hell they are talking about? If you believe the only way to know the game is to play the game....why do you have faith in any presidential canidate who has never held played the game of President?
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays? If one is not a soldier in Iraq should one be able to comment on the war in Iraq? I will refrain from characterizing your comments, but suffice it to say it is biased as with little forethought.



Are you asserting that if someone has never played organized tackle football (meaning they have never worn shoulder pads, a cup, a helmet, a mouth piece, learned a play book, gone to practice, played in a game with refs and a crowd, tackled someone, blocked someone, thrown a pass to someone, broken a tackle, runback a punt or kick off, run a route, caught a pass, called a play in the huddle, called a defense, made a sack, made an audible, sat on a bench, worn a uniform, done 2 a days, run laps, leg ups, man in the middle drills, blocking dummy, window throws, toe taps, 40s, etc...) or been in the military/conflict/war (meaning they have never enlisted been to boot camp, worn a uniform, shot a weapon, shot a weapon at someone, wounded or killed someone with that weapon, called in support, been that support, taken point, run an obstacle course with live fire, lived on a military base , followed the chain of command, served abroad, been wounded in combat, seen someone wounded in combat, see someone die in combat, etc...) is offering an analysis as informed, experiential and comprehensive as a person who has actually done said things? Are you asserting that the next time I am searching for a Krav Maga School I need not seek one where there are trained and practiced masters and teachers, but a school with a bunch of guys who have watched a bunch of martial arts movies and seen the Human Weapon series will be just as good if not better and quite possibly be more affordable? Are you asserting that the knowledge that comes with actually doing something is overrated, just watching someone else do it gives you the same knowledge? Are you asserting that watching someone play quarterback gives one the same knowledge and skill base as someone actually playing the position?


By this logic... unless you have run office shouldn't you never speak of politics...

just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


Clearly as evident on this board one can speak about anything that moves them.

Not my point. And the question still wasnt answered about the assertion.

"If one does not play football one should therefore not watch football and offer analysis of the game and plays?"

Surely YOU can! That doesnt mean that YOU know what YOU are talking about. Particularly when talking to someone who has.


Well if that is the case a person who has never been president should not be running for president because when they make assertions about what they can acomplish...they don't really know what the hell they are talking about. Hence....why do you support anyone for president who has never been president and therefore have no way of knowing what the hell they are talking about? If you believe the only way to know the game is to play the game....why do you have faith in any presidential canidate who has never held played the game of President?


In general its a simple yes or no question. Yes I am saying that or No I am not saying that. I Thabrothaman69 havent said anything. I asked a question. The question in its simplest form is -
Are you asserting that someone who hasnt done something is speaking from an as informed place as someone who has?

Example: if one has not shot someone can they talk about what its like to shoot someone in as an informed way as someone who has?

I get the impression based on what I quoted from you that you are asserting that one can. But I didnt want to assume that so I asked.

Here is why I asked.

NTA you recently stated in one of your post that part of your reasoning about Obama was based in your understanding of economics and shared that you thought or realized that many didnt have that understanding. I could have responded to that by calling it BS or offering whatever opposition I thought was worthy. And I had the right to if I wanted. I didnt because I dont know crap about economics or anything that would have helped me speak from an informed position. Yeah, yeah I watched Greenspan when he would come on and all that, doesnt mean I knew or know what I am talking about. Doesnt mean I needed to be an economist to be informed either, but it does mean on some level I would have to learn, do and study.

So as it relates to someone speaking on something being my point in responding to what you wrote I believe, If one doesnt or hasnt played football can they offer an analysis? Sure they can. They have every right to. Can they call it a bad play? Yep. Can they say they would not have run that play? Yep. Does that mean they know what they are talking about? Nope. Does that mean they are speaking from a place of being as informed as if they played nope.

Am I asserting some things? Yep. I am asserting that no matter what they have seen on TV or in the stands the game is still much faster when you play it and until you have played it you will never know what that is. Thus if I were picking a head coach I would hire one with actual playing experience (and as you point out quite often about history, history supports this to be the case when it actually happens).

As for:

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Well if that is the case a person who has never been president should not be running for president because when they make assertions about what they can acomplish...they don't really know what the hell they are talking about. Hence....why do you support anyone for president who has never been president and therefore have no way of knowing what the hell they are talking about? If you believe the only way to know the game is to play the game....why do you have faith in any presidential canidate who has never held played the game of President?


Firstly I would assert that one plays the game of politics not presidency (but thats just me). Anyway, If someone is running for president and was a mayor, representative, senator, governor or vice president they on some level have played the game prior to running for president (which as it relates to what one does before hand has been the case for quite some time now). As for what they can accomplish one can get a sense of that based on how they played the game when in one of the aforementioned positions. I have faith that they may be a good president because of their work history before becoming one.

Example: Tony Dungee who was an average QB in college but was good when converted to DB in the pros, was a good DB coach, then a good defensive coordinator turned out to be a good head coach. Though he had not been a head coach prior becoming one his work history in the game gave people faith that he could be a good head coach none the less.

So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them), I get the impression you are saying its not required at all to know anything at all about what one speaks of... (for what reason I admit I dont know, but I am sure you will help me out).
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...


I am not and have not said "should not", "can not" or "dont not" say anything. I have not said that anyone is just a fan or anything petty, small, or dismisive. My comments are about some's view that because NTA does not vote he should not speak about it. I have not said he should not speak about. I have said that it makes it harder for people who are doing something to hear others who arent.

I could talk about what muslims should do, what I think the NOI should be like and how I think muslim women should act. I have the right to do it. The fact that I only know a limited amount about Islam and have never been a part of the NOI means (IMHO) that I should not be surprised if those who are question my sincerity, understanding, knowledge base or information. And just because I have an absolute right to my opinion, it does not however make my opinion right.

And although I can and do appreciate the debate or summary of what it is that you think I am saying or mean. I have yet to get an answer to the assertion. Yes this is it, No this isnt it or Kinda sorta let me explain.
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...


I am not and have not said "should not", "can not" or "dont not" say anything. I have not said that anyone is just a fan or anything petty, small, or dismisive. My comments are about some's view that because NTA does not vote he should not speak about it. I have not said he should not speak about. I have said that it makes it harder for people who are doing something to hear others who arent.

I could talk about what muslims should do, what I think the NOI should be like and how I think muslim women should act. I have the right to do it. The fact that I only know a limited amount about Islam and have never been a part of the NOI means (IMHO) that I should not be surprised if those who are question my sincerity, understanding, knowledge base or information. And just because I have an absolute right to my opinion, it does not however make my opinion right.

And although I can and do appreciate the debate or summary of what it is that you think I am saying or mean. I have yet to get an answer to the assertion. Yes this is it, No this isnt it or Kinda sorta let me explain.


If you have not spoken "should's" then the point is moot...

You have a right to speak of the political process.. a process of which you are not a part of but are analyzing from a distance with as much right as Noah who is not a politician but analyzing from a distance...

The only thing you can actually school Noah on is the method of voting... of which you have some actual experience.. so if you want to discuss chads... the line at the voting booth etc.. you have a leg to stand on...

otherwise it seems any criticism of NOah for speaking his mind about the political process can be said for you as well...

voting does not make one more astute of the political process... it just makes you have first hand experience of standing in a line, going to the booth and choosing formally...
Can I criticize Noah for having a defeatist mentality that has no place in progressive politics?

We can all analyze from a distance, because we may all have something to contribute. But what does a defeatist contribute?

Honestly.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...


I am not and have not said "should not", "can not" or "dont not" say anything. I have not said that anyone is just a fan or anything petty, small, or dismisive. My comments are about some's view that because NTA does not vote he should not speak about it. I have not said he should not speak about. I have said that it makes it harder for people who are doing something to hear others who arent.

I could talk about what muslims should do, what I think the NOI should be like and how I think muslim women should act. I have the right to do it. The fact that I only know a limited amount about Islam and have never been a part of the NOI means (IMHO) that I should not be surprised if those who are question my sincerity, understanding, knowledge base or information. And just because I have an absolute right to my opinion, it does not however make my opinion right.

And although I can and do appreciate the debate or summary of what it is that you think I am saying or mean. I have yet to get an answer to the assertion. Yes this is it, No this isnt it or Kinda sorta let me explain.


If you have not spoken "should's" then the point is moot...

You have a right to speak of the political process.. a process of which you are not a part of but are analyzing from a distance with as much right as Noah who is not a politician but analyzing from a distance...

The only thing you can actually school Noah on is the method of voting... of which you have some actual experience.. so if you want to discuss chads... the line at the voting booth etc.. you have a leg to stand on...

otherwise it seems any criticism of NOah for speaking his mind about the political process can be said for you as well...

voting does not make one more astute of the political process... it just makes you have first hand experience of standing in a line, going to the booth and choosing formally...


rock

Now I will await NTA's conversation with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


The point is, in every society there are people who will be responsible for leadership. Unless one is in favor of having a dictatorship where leaders are imposed upon them, I think it's great that people at least have a choice in the matter in terms of who they want to be in these leadership positions. In some societies, one doesn't have a choice. Brother Noah has said that he's made a conscientious decision not to vote, because he believes a two-party system is obsolete, but how is not being politically active and not exercising his right to right going to change the current two-party system to the type of political system that he believes is ideal? On the contrary, by not voting, he's ensuring that things remain the same.
quote:
he will inherit an economy about the collapse and the president that sits in office during the collapse will get the blame....and I don't want that to befall a black person. If Obama could become president, he will put a black face on US imperialism and world evil and transpose that dislike to African Americans, who once had international respect as not part and parcel to our nation's evils. I also don't want it rationalized that racial policies needs to be eliminated because a black president demonstrates the nation has moved past its racist past.....ect....ect.



I'm not interested in entertaining anymore of this self-deafist thinking, because that's all I hear in your arguments for why you're against Obama running. You are obviously very discouraged, pessimistic, and suspicious about a lot of things concerning this year's election. I can't say that I blame you, considering our experience in this country. However, you're not accepting that our struggle in this country will continue, regardless of the positions in which Black Americans earn on the way. When we were enslaved, we struggled for our humanity. When we became educators, physicians, lawyers, scholars, civil rights leaders, and politicians, we struggled. And when we become leaders of this nation, we will continue to struggle for our humanity. The struggle will go on, but the long journey towards our total upliftment must begin by taking the first step out of stagnation. We cannot remain stagnate, allowing times of the past to hold us back from progressing on to a more positive and optimistic future.
Last edited {1}
I never said that by me not voting that I would change the system. For me, I am gravitating towards Africa. Why assimilate to a white washed existence and acceptance when I can participate in developing a world of the black people, by the black people and for the black people? Everything involves a process and I am evolving in process to add value to the motherland with my capacities. America is my home, but I feel like I am paying rent to white America, plus an association fee that controls what I do and how I do it via the tyranny of the white majority. Whether I realize my African dreams or not, that is my source of hope and inspiration and not some Negro acting as a surrogate for white interest in America.

Look at what's happening in Asia. I envision the same thing can happen in Africa. America's time has gone and went. The hand writing is on the wall. It's taking the predictable rise and fall trajectory of all the great empires and civilizations of the world. Now that the ship is arguably sinking......"here n1gga....you want to be captain"? Oh yes suh.....Iz always a wanted ta be captin". Later...."Oh my God.....the N1ggas done sank the ship....".
quote:
For me, I am gravitating towards Africa. Why assimilate to a white washed existence and acceptance when I can participate in developing a world of the black people, by the black people and for the black people?



And that's all good. I support your efforts 100%. But while you're developing a world for Black people in Africa, in America, you're breathing polluted air, your kids are being undereducated, people are getting sick from poor quality food and health care, you'll be outside of your home buttnaked with no key, and that gas that you use everyday to get to and from work, guess what? It will be $8.00 a gallon by this time next year unless you invest some of your interest in developing Africa into your quality of living here in America. That's all I'm saying. I'm all for Africa, but let's not act like some Christians, always dreaming and fanticizing about going to heaven when they know they got to live here on earth.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I never said that by me not voting that I would change the system.


Specifically, what you said is this:

quote:
Its hard to argue that one is down for black people if they are willing to behave in such a way that ensures that Republicans will win the white house and the supreme court may possibly be stacked for a generation with conservative anti-black majority.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/1271007364/p/2


You accused anybody supporting Obama of not being "down for black people" because (according to your rather bizarre psychohistorical calculations--Hari Seldon you are not!) a vote for Obama somehow translates into a vote for McCain.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
just casting a vote does not afford one the same experience as a politician...

you're just watching them play and making a bet on who's going to win...


The point is, in every society there are people who will be responsible for leadership. Unless one is in favor of having a dictatorship where leaders are imposed upon them, I think it's great that people at least have a choice in the matter in terms of who they want to be in these leadership positions. In some societies, one doesn't have a choice. Brother Noah has said that he's made a conscientious decision not to vote, because he believes a two-party system is obsolete, but how is not being politically active and not exercising his right to right going to change the current two-party system to the type of political system that he believes is ideal? On the contrary, by not voting, he's ensuring that things remain the same.


You believe in the voting process... you believe your vote matters... many do not.. and many have sound reasons for believing so... you should speak to them...

my point was made and received... has nothing to do with voting or not voting.. but with a specific logic used...

not sure why you chose to highlight me...

but mmmk...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
You believe in the voting process... you believe your vote matters... many do not.. and many have sound reasons for believing so... you should speak to them...


You don't believe in the voting porcess... you don't believe your vote matters (and as long as you count yourself out, it won't)...but many do...that's why they take the responsibility to vote...ask the hundreds of Black people who lived before you and made great sacrifices so that you would have the right to vote...and they had sound reasons for doing so...you should inform yourself about them and the important reasons why these sacrifices were made on your behalf...

quote:
not sure why you chose to highlight me...


I am responding to the comments made in your post. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...


I am not and have not said "should not", "can not" or "dont not" say anything. I have not said that anyone is just a fan or anything petty, small, or dismisive. My comments are about some's view that because NTA does not vote he should not speak about it. I have not said he should not speak about. I have said that it makes it harder for people who are doing something to hear others who arent.

I could talk about what muslims should do, what I think the NOI should be like and how I think muslim women should act. I have the right to do it. The fact that I only know a limited amount about Islam and have never been a part of the NOI means (IMHO) that I should not be surprised if those who are question my sincerity, understanding, knowledge base or information. And just because I have an absolute right to my opinion, it does not however make my opinion right.

And although I can and do appreciate the debate or summary of what it is that you think I am saying or mean. I have yet to get an answer to the assertion. Yes this is it, No this isnt it or Kinda sorta let me explain.


If you have not spoken "should's" then the point is moot...

You have a right to speak of the political process.. a process of which you are not a part of but are analyzing from a distance with as much right as Noah who is not a politician but analyzing from a distance...

The only thing you can actually school Noah on is the method of voting... of which you have some actual experience.. so if you want to discuss chads... the line at the voting booth etc.. you have a leg to stand on...

otherwise it seems any criticism of NOah for speaking his mind about the political process can be said for you as well...

voting does not make one more astute of the political process... it just makes you have first hand experience of standing in a line, going to the booth and choosing formally...



If Noah were actually analyzing from a distance, that would be kool. Distance implies objectivity. Stating that "black people ain't sh1t! as in WE ain't sh1t!" for failing to vote for a particular white person is not analyzing from a distance with objectivity.

In addition, it's Noah who is repeatedly making error filled assumptions about the motivations of black voters and asserting them as truth AS IF he has a clue.

Of course Noah has a right to speak his mind. That goes without saying. However, Noah cannot be accurately described as "analyzing from a distance" if his every utterance serves to belittle black people SPECIFICALLY for abandoning the white woman known as Hillary Clinton...
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
You believe in the voting process... you believe your vote matters... many do not.. and many have sound reasons for believing so... you should speak to them...


You don't believe in the voting porcess... you don't believe your vote matters (and as long as you count yourself out, it won't)...


This is not true of me.. hence the suggestion to speak to those who do not.. :-)
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by thabrothaman69:
So I am suggesting that when someone is talking about something they dont have to have actual knowledge of it, only that it helps if they have first hand knowledge of it (makes it hard to dismiss them),


Your logic is still essentially:

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being president should not discuss being president...

If you don't have first hand knowledge of being a politician you should not discuss politics...

If you are watching the actions of politicians and watching the actions of someone during their presidency then you are no better than any fan in the stands...


I am not and have not said "should not", "can not" or "dont not" say anything. I have not said that anyone is just a fan or anything petty, small, or dismisive. My comments are about some's view that because NTA does not vote he should not speak about it. I have not said he should not speak about. I have said that it makes it harder for people who are doing something to hear others who arent.

I could talk about what muslims should do, what I think the NOI should be like and how I think muslim women should act. I have the right to do it. The fact that I only know a limited amount about Islam and have never been a part of the NOI means (IMHO) that I should not be surprised if those who are question my sincerity, understanding, knowledge base or information. And just because I have an absolute right to my opinion, it does not however make my opinion right.

And although I can and do appreciate the debate or summary of what it is that you think I am saying or mean. I have yet to get an answer to the assertion. Yes this is it, No this isnt it or Kinda sorta let me explain.


If you have not spoken "should's" then the point is moot...

You have a right to speak of the political process.. a process of which you are not a part of but are analyzing from a distance with as much right as Noah who is not a politician but analyzing from a distance...

The only thing you can actually school Noah on is the method of voting... of which you have some actual experience.. so if you want to discuss chads... the line at the voting booth etc.. you have a leg to stand on...

otherwise it seems any criticism of NOah for speaking his mind about the political process can be said for you as well...

voting does not make one more astute of the political process... it just makes you have first hand experience of standing in a line, going to the booth and choosing formally...



If Noah were actually analyzing from a distance, that would be kool. Distance implies objectivity. Stating that "black people ain't sh1t! as in WE ain't sh1t!" for failing to vote for a particular white person is not analyzing from a distance with objectivity.

Of course Noah has a right to speak his mind. That goes without saying. However, Noah cannot be accurately described as "analyzing from a distance" if his every utterance serves to belitle black people SPECIFICALLY for abandoning Hillary Clinton...


With respect NS,

Whether or not you like his analysis is moot... it is your personal opinion of which you are entitled.. but your personal opinion of HIS oppinion is not what is at issue... or whether you feel it is objective has no relevance as far as the point of my response is concerned...

he still has the right to analyze and his thoughts be considered without being the president himself or a politician... and this is all the discussion centered around...
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Whether I realize my African dreams or not, that is my source of hope and inspiration and not some Negro acting as a surrogate for white interest in America.



and in your limited imagination, a black american who choses to exercize the right to vote that his elders bled fought and died for, has no sources of hope and inspiration other than a political candidate?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×