MyFox
 

cjl1618's Blog

by cjl1618 from Euless

Last Post 17 days, 21 hours Ago


Politics the Democrats and Race
Feb 16, 2008 | 1:23 PM
Category: Political
Report This Post

Since I can't seem to find a candidate to vote for, I was giving thought to the process that the Democrats have chosen for their nomination.

The democrats say they are the party of inclusion and that every vote must be counted - except for Florida and Michigan. Of course since the democrats, and it seems much of US society, cannot allow there to be a loser at anything (from playground games to politics) they divide the delegates from each state by proportional representation - expect maybe not.

If you win 59% of the state votes, you do not get 59% of the delegates. That is precisely why the party finds itself in such a state. There will most likely not be a delegate winner before the convention. They will both be close, but neither will have enough to secure the nomination. Clinton may give up, but this will be her only shot so she will want to stick it out to the end.

So then we get to the super delegates. If you have been paying attention, super delegates include Senators, Congressman, college students, various democratic "strategist" that you will often see on CNN and the like.

I have seen interviews with some of the 21 year old super delegates, explaining why they should not follow the will of the people in their state. They were chosen for their vast knowledge and expertise at picking the correct nominee because the people that voted, were to stupid to do that themselves by voting.

So we get to the convention. Obama is ahead by 30 delegates. The 800+ super delegates cast their vote (after totaling up how much cash each pres. campaign has given to them ) and Hilary Clinton wins the nomination. Well that is one scenario, of course that would result in racial rioting across the US.

So in the end, the black super delegates will vote for Obama, Clinton may get a few votes, but most white super delegates will vote Obama for fear of being labeled racist.

Hmmmm ought to be fun whatever happens. McCain already thinks of me as a racist since I say not one illegal should be given ANY ability to stay in this country ever.

Oh well - I guess the democrats will call me racist too. I just can't seem to win - oh wait, thats right, it is wrong to have winners and losers


13 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 13
Page 1 of 1
KellerKowboy read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 9:06 PM

It's really odd, when you think about it. Senator Obama is considered "black". He is, of course, the child of a Caucasian Mother - and therefor - "half black". But, for purposes of politics, he's "conveniently black", rather than Caucasian.

Even some blacks have said he's "not black enough" and that's an insanely stupid thing to say.

It makes absolutely NO difference to me what color he is or isn't. It's his politics I don't care for.
Onyx read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 9:33 PM

(But, for purposes of politics, he's "conveniently black", rather than Caucasian.)

***Because of the One Drop Theory is conveniently black rather than Caucasian. Not Black enough is silly but it is a thorn in our side...to some. It is silly to focus on what we think is "black enough" when in reality 98% of us are of a mixed race. Your appearance of blackness (darker skin) is determined only by how far back or how at hand your race is to the bloodline of another race of people is.

I am hoping that Americans will vote for or against Obama based SOLELY on his politics and not his racial lineage.
KellerKowboy read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 9:40 PM

I certainly agree with that, Onyx!

This is the same type of incredibly foolish talk that surrounds Tiger Woods...arguably the greatest golfer of all time.

What the HELL difference does it make?
Onyx read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 10:11 PM

It makes no difference, my friend. None at all. Woods' ability as a golfer is who he is...not his lineage or how "black" he looks. That's secondary. He had to get here somehow and it just so happens that two people of different races produced him.

Yet, you have those who are angry that the pure race of people who landed here are no longer here. I can understand this way of thinking, however I also understand how ineffective it is to dwell on it to the point of becoming crippled by a history that we cannot change.

For some, Obama is a reminder of that history, and for some that is reason enough to not vote for him.

Go figure...
Marks read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 10:43 PM

Race is never a reason to vote for (or against) anyone. Policy is a different animal.

Perhaps a third-leg of political triangulation is: If one candidate is less worthy of consideration. Case in point is Hillary Clinton. There comes a time when we have to choose between the past and the future. I would pick Obama before I would pick Clinton, and it has nothing to do with race (or even gender for that matter).

Incidentally, KK, Woods is simply that good. Why do we question if his roots, either from Thailand or Africa, make him that good? He is good...
Onyx read my blog view my photos
Feb 16, 2008 | 11:07 PM

Exactly, Marky...

Thank you.
scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Feb 17, 2008 | 7:54 AM

Policy will keep me out of this one it appears. None of the candidates will bring good to us. What a sad state of affairs we're in.
terryshed read my blog view my photos
Feb 17, 2008 | 10:22 AM

I'm a huge Obama supporter. However, I’m starting to wonder why can't either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton agree and name the other as vice president? It just seems that lately there has been a lot of unnecessary division planted in the Democratic Party. "Divided we fall, united we stand". We have the opportunity of gaining two great leaders instead of loosing one. I know they have different issues, but to a certain extent they stand for the same thing. Or is becoming executive president more important than the well-being of our country and coming to an agreement of those issues? The Republican Party won’t know wouldn’t know what hit eum!
scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Feb 17, 2008 | 10:56 AM

Neither of the two you mentioned are great leaders, Terry. Indeed, none have so much as done much of anything and yet you're quite willing to bow an either's altar and give them the most powerful office in the world? I don't understand your decision.

As for not knowing what hit someone, wait until you see your paycheck when Clinton or Obama raise taxes as they must. I will be here to tell you, "I told you so!"
cbfan read my blog
Feb 17, 2008 | 2:23 PM

Bush hadn't done anything more than these two before he was elected.
Whoever is elected will have to raise taxes to help balance the budget. Our debt is ridiculously out of hand.

To see the truth about the national debt, go to the website below and look at the chart. It shows the history of the debt. Just click on the chart and it will enlarge. See who is really responsible for our debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Feb 17, 2008 | 6:10 PM

That is simply not true, cbfan. The way to balance the budget is to cut spending drastically, something the Dems do not want to do and the Republicans aren't much better at.
cbfan read my blog
Feb 17, 2008 | 6:14 PM

I agree that spending should be cut, but as you mentioned, neither party is willing to do that. Therefore, that only leaves the other option.
scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Feb 17, 2008 | 6:40 PM

We're screwed no matter who wins.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




cjl1618

There is no problem with the climate that cutting the human population in half would not solve.

Member Since: 4/13/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?