Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

[LSUmiss]

Ohhh, I fully understand what you are saying...
What I am pointing out is that this is, indeed, racist... Whether one is the person doing it, or validating/condoning it.

I am just calling this behavior out for what it is.
And, that is racist.

Let's not accept any double standard here.

Would any other politician get away with not only making such statements, "We need to put a white (male) in office".... Not only being caught making such a statement, but openly employing this viewpoint as a part of their campaign strategy????

This is misguided. It usually b/c they would like to feel they have some representation in government. I think white male representation is covered.

 

[LSUmiss]

Love the assumptions on why "they" vote. Shouldn't be surprised coming from you though.

I think he meant time say “those ppl”.

 

[maddiel]

Would any other politician get away with not only making such statements, "We need to put a white (male) in office".... Not only being caught making such a statement, but openly employing this viewpoint as a part of their campaign strategy????

I believe that having the demographics of elected representatives reflect the demographics of the electorate leads to more effective representation. I don't believe there are many places on Earth where white males are under-represented in government when compared to their proportion of the population.

But I am not a Floridian or an American, so take my opinion with a grain of salt....

M.

 

[rickybobby]

I think he meant time say “those ppl”.

Yeah, you think you know me enough to point out what I mean vs what I post?

 

[skyblue17]

I believe that having the demographics of elected representatives reflect the demographics of the electorate leads to more effective representation. I don't believe there are many places on Earth where white males are under-represented in government when compared to their proportion of the population.

But I am not a Floridian or an American, so take my opinion with a grain of salt....

M.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about this concept. I'm an American, and a woman, and I'm excited to see more women, closer to my age and closer to my situation, being elected. The population of this country is not made up of one demographic, so if people are eager to vote for a candidate simply because they believe that candidate will take their own issues into account more than his/her/their opponent, I don't see what is wrong with that. Sometimes that IS tied to race, class, ethnicity, etc.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about this concept. I'm an American, and a woman, and I'm excited to see more women, closer to my age and closer to my situation, being elected. The population of this country is not made up of one demographic, so if people are eager to vote for a candidate simply because they believe that candidate will take their own issues into account more than his/her/their opponent, I don't see what is wrong with that. Sometimes that IS tied to race, class, ethnicity, etc.

I agree. The twisting some will do to turn this into a justification of racism, sexism, etc. is mind-blowing. When I've seen those kinds of posts, I've been trying to say something, out of concern that a lack of response might be interpreted as agreement. But while some posters seem willing to engage in an actual conversation (sometimes leading me also to understand a different point of view, even if I don't agree with it), some people are so far dug in that it's just impossible.

 

[Wishing on a star]

But.... if a white candidate wins... and I quote... "The election was stolen by racists".

Again.... I have NO double standard here.
Racism is racism, no matter where it comes from.

I am calling racism out for what it is.
And, whether or not many people want to see it or acknowledge it... It exists in a big, big, way.
It can be convenient and easy to be blind. or to have selective hearing.
This racism has been promoted and encouraged at the very highest levels. In a huge and negative way.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I am a woman.... That would in NO way, whatsoever, make me inclined to vote for a woman who's core values and vision for the future of my Country/State are very contrary to my own.
Many people, of ALL backgrounds voted for Obama.

You can't deny that racism/sexism,etc. are there, while every other word that one hears refers to race, or sex.
I am not the one who brought any mention of any race into this thread.
I only called out what I was reading here.

I don't vote for a particular skin color, gender, etc.
I vote for the person who I feel represents and fights for the best interests of our State/Country.

 

[Southernmiss]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about this concept. I'm an American, and a woman, and I'm excited to see more women, closer to my age and closer to my situation, being elected. The population of this country is not made up of one demographic, so if people are eager to vote for a candidate simply because they believe that candidate will take their own issues into account more than his/her/their opponent, I don't see what is wrong with that. Sometimes that IS tied to race, class, ethnicity, etc.

I experienced this first hand when a candidate was put forth who was much more similar to me than any candidate I had ever seen before. I vividly remember crying when they were introduced to think someone like me could be up for that office.

But it was short lived. Once they were around a while, I realized their ideals were different than mine.

But the hope and idea were there for a glimmer.

 

[GreatLakes]

If you vote for someone based on their race instead of their political goals you are a racist. If you vote for someone based on their gender instead of their political goals you are sexist.

Which race or gender it is doesn't make it any better or worse.

If you vote based on any demographic instead of their political goals you are basically a bigot.

Uhh the very rich got a waaaaaay bigger tax break that most of us will pay for later. So, that’s the tactic, give them a piece & they’ll be on your side. You fell for it.

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. The biggest tax breaks should go to the people that pay the most in taxes. Someone paying $500,000 a year in taxes should get a break before the person paying $30,000.

 

[luvsJack]

What ever happened to to voting for the person who has the same values, ideas and visions as you do?

Sorry but being a woman does not make a candidate have the same life I do or the same problems or the same anything. It doesn’t mean that she will stand for the same issues that are important to me.

 

[rickybobby]

Uhh the very rich got a waaaaaay bigger tax break that most of us will pay for later. So, that’s the tactic, give them a piece & they’ll be on your side. You fell for it.

No, I think you may be part of "The rich have more money than me, so they must be destroyed" mentality. May I suggest a book to you, titled "The Millionaire Next Door"?

 

[rickybobby]

I am a woman.... That would in NO way, whatsoever, make me inclined to vote for a woman who's core values and vision for the future of my Country/State are very contrary to my own.
Many people, of ALL backgrounds voted for Obama.

You can't deny that racism/sexism,etc. are there, while every other word that one hears refers to race, or sex.
I am not the one who brought any mention of any race into this thread.
I only called out what I was reading here.

I don't vote for a particular skin color, gender, etc.
I vote for the person who I feel represents and fights for the best interests of our State/Country.

If we could ever get to that point, the republic would be much stronger.

 

[skyblue17]

What ever happened to to voting for the person who has the same values, ideas and visions as you do?

Sorry but being a woman does not make a candidate have the same life I do or the same problems or the same anything. It doesn’t mean that she will stand for the same issues that are important to me.

Of course you should vote for the person who has the same values, ideas and visions that you do. What I don't see as far-fetched is that people of color, women, younger candidates automatically attract the attention of those in their demographic simply because they aren't the same old type, being run out there yet again.

Anyway, this thread is starting to go political, so I'll bow out now.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Of course you should vote for the person who has the same values, ideas and visions that you do. What I don't see as far-fetched is that people of color, women, younger candidates automatically attract the attention of those in their demographic simply because they aren't the same old type, being run out there yet again.

Anyway, this thread is starting to go political, so I'll bow out now.

No different than being attracted to the candidate from your home state. Any time you can find some “connection” with a candidate, it’s a natural draw and people shouldn’t take issue with that. Now, basing your vote ENTIRELY on that connection is another story.

 

[dish rag]

Uhh the very rich got a waaaaaay bigger tax break that most of us will pay for later. So, that’s the tactic, give them a piece & they’ll be on your side. You fell for it.

YYYYaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn.

 

[luvsJack]

No different than being attracted to the candidate from your home state. Any time you can find some “connection” with a candidate, it’s a natural draw and people shouldn’t take issue with that. Now, basing your vote ENTIRELY on that connection is another story.

Exactly this is what I meant. It can be connection in any way but mostly it has to be about what they stand for or it should be.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Just issued two huge 'likes' to your last posts, RickyBobby!
I would also add just one other little point, but that would def. be political, and be in violation of board rules.

And, while I do understand that people might want to gravitate and be more inclined to consider candidates with whom they share some similarities...
The 'black' comments most go way farther than that.
I know racism when I see it.

There have been two threads shut down, recently, because racist (or what could be called reverse-racist) name-calling comments.
Don't try to tell me that this mentality/viewpoint isn't our there in a big way.

The double standard is both huge, and undeniable.

 

[b2k1121]

If you vote for someone based on their race instead of their political goals you are a racist. If you vote for someone based on their gender instead of their political goals you are sexist.

Which race or gender it is doesn't make it any better or worse.

If you vote based on any demographic instead of their political goals you are basically a bigot.



I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. The biggest tax breaks should go to the people that pay the most in taxes. Someone paying $500,000 a year in taxes should get a break before the person paying $30,000.

Well it doesn't really help anyone besides corporations and the ultra wealthy. And before you say all the extra cash corporations now have can be used to grow their companies, it's only going to stock buybacks. Wages have remained stagnant and inequality has grown so the only benefit to the majority of the people in this country is a handful of dollars per month.

The insanely rich got even more insanely rich and many are quick to celebrate it because they believe they will be one of them someday? I don't know, I'm not sure what it is that has caused so many in the middle and lower classes to cheer-lead for the rich even at their own detriment. I'm not saying they need to be taxed at 99%, but at a time of unprecedented income inequality, they certainly don't need any more breaks.

 

[NotUrsula]

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. The biggest tax breaks should go to the people that pay the most in taxes. Someone paying $500,000 a year in taxes should get a break before the person paying $30,000.

Not exactly. The perspective is that there is a base at which the COL is factored in, and a point above it at which it no longer is. A person who makes $30K has very little disposable income, while a person who makes $300K has rather a lot more left over once basic needs (food, shelter, reliable transportation, medications) have been covered. A wealthier person can afford to pay a larger amount of money and shoulder a bit more of the public burden without suffering unduly from the lack of that money.

Now, some folks will say that's a socialist perspective, but that's what taxes are all about. We pay them in order to maintain services that serve the public good, for all of us. Even those people who have all the money they could ever want still benefit when the poorest in society are kept proactively healthy and educated, so that they live productive lives, pay some taxes themselves, and don't overburden the criminal justice and health care systems.