[Kerrigan]

YouTube - Clinton Supporter Thrown Out of Rules Committee Meeting, Ma

An amusing video of a Monique-style diatribe against Obama. This woman is basically your typical white Democrat--cooky, emotional, and with a huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade of self-righteous liberality.

[besson3c]

I can't imagine any real basis for claiming that this is typical of anything, but I do agree that her blathering is really quite incoherent.

[vmarks]

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

[lpkmckenna]

I think Monique would prefer Obama. And I think this "Solomonic" decision is retarded.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

The shame is that they get any vote at all. State party broke the rules, DNC said no votes, people changed their voting behavior because of that, and now suddenly they get a partial vote?

The RNC did it right from the beginning, with half votes for breaking the rules.

[besson3c]

vmarks: what would you have done?

[ironknee]

whatever rush says

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

It's not a general election. A political party is going through the process of choosing its nominee. Apparently, they leave it up to the state parties to decide how to award delegates to the convention, through either caucusing, or based on popular vote. The number of delegates awarded determines the likely nominee. Every candidate going into this thing last fall had a firm grasp on how the party system works, and no one in the Clinton camp had the slightest problem with Michigan and Florida being sanctioned, until it became obvious that they desperately needed the delegates from those states if they were to eke out a victory. The R&B committee determined a compromise today, based on what they could glean from the party's rules. If you don't like the way the party is run and want to change its rules and bylaws, then join in, and see what you can get done.

And yeah, that one woman flipped right the f*ck out. I don't think she represents the largest majority of Clinton supporters.

[Captain Obvious]

basically your typical white Democrat--cooky, emotional, and with a huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade of self-righteous liberality.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

YouTube - Clinton Supporter Thrown Out of Rules Committee Meeting, Ma

An amusing video of a Monique-style diatribe against Obama. This woman is basically your typical white Democrat--cooky, emotional, and with a huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade of self-righteous liberality.

Of course, it's always the white people who have the huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade.

Give me a break.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

basically your typical white Democrat--cooky, emotional, and with a huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade of self-righteous liberality.

Is that jackass delivering a sermon or getting a blow-job? I can't tell which.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

As mentioned earlier this is the parties nomination process not a general election. The parties are free to decide their own process for nominating their candidate. This used to be done with basically no or superficial input from voters. Then you have the super-delegates who, in a close race such as this, now have even more influence on the process.

Even within the states that have primaries for the Deomocrats it may not be exactly 'one person, one vote'. The Dems allocate more pledged delegates to districts that have shown more support for Democrats. So if you're a Dem in a district that has been traditionally supported Republicans you're vote won't count as much as your fellow state citizen that votes in a Democrat leaning district. Obama has made judicious use of this in maximizing his wins and minimizing his loses. The Republicans allocate pledged delegates proportionally based on percentage of the vote over the whole state.

This mess on the Democrat's nomination reminds me a bit of the 2000 election. Nobody bitched about the flaws in the system until they became significant due to a close election. The views taken on the flaws and proposed remedies depended mostly on what one viewed as most benifical for their team. If the unseated delegates helped Obama, I have no doubt in my mind that Hillary would be unwavering in her support for the earlier decision to not seat the Michigan and Florida delegates (and Obama would be fighting to get them to count).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

How shameful that you don't understand the process, and how shameful it is that the OP makes his usual, typical, generalizations, with no basis in fact.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

As mduell notes, the Republicans did the exact same thing in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida, cutting the number of delegates in half as penalty for violating party rules on scheduling. They just declared the penalty early and then let the primaries go on as planned. Nobody complained.

The Democrats (and I blame Howard Dean mostly) actually declared early primaries invalid, stripped all the delegates, and told the candidates not to campaign there. Which, of course, was the worst possible decision they could make, since it put the voters in those states and the national party at odds, and forced the candidates to choose between them. The sh!tstorm we have now is a direct result of that decision, and if the Democrats lose the election because they alienated voters in Michigan and Florida, they have Howard Dean to thank.

Nobody is talking about "voter disenfranchisement" among Republicans in Florida, although they imposed the exact same penalty in Florida and four other states that the Democrats are just now realizing they need to impose....

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This woman is basically your typical white Democrat--cooky, emotional, and with a huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade of self-righteous liberality.

Since when? Since May 31, 2008 at 10:05 pm when Kerrigan declared it so?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

That makes about as much sense as saying that Iranian nationals should get to vote in US elections since they're people too. These states did not run their elections in accordance with the rules, the elections were not run fairly, they knew what the consequences for this would be, and now they're actually getting more kindness than they deserve.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

Why, even slaves counted more towards population (3/5ths human) which determined the number of representatives in the House, and the number of votes in the Electoral College.

So much for the 'one person, one vote' concept, Democrats.

Uhm, yeah, Primary != Election.

What the Democracks do internally has nothing to do with the voting for the Electoral College.

-t

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Of course, it's always the white people who have the huge simmering cauldron of racism boiling just beneath their facade.

Give me a break.

White Democrats are extraordinarily racist, just beneath the surface of their facade. NON-white Democrats are just flat out racist and don't even bother trying to hide it (just look at Whoopi Goldberg).

[besson3c]

Kerrigan: could there be a more retarded generalization? You win.

[Kerrigan]

Could you have a response that is any more ****ing impotent than that? Or are you keen on maintaining your extremely low level of argumentative competence in all your replies?

[besson3c]

I assure you that my response is quite capable of performing sexually...

I'm astonished that I have to spell this out to you Kerrigan... There are, what, 10-20 million voting Democrats? Are you saying that they are all racists? You do realize that there is no way you can prove that, right?

So, are we supposed to thank you for sharing with us your gut feeling? And you call my argumentative approach incompetent?

[Chuckit]

Generalizations only have to be generally true. There's no need to "prove" "they are all racists."

[besson3c]

Chuckit: I realize that, but what term would be better to use than "generalization"? We make generalizations to form what we think are broad sweeping truths without the necessary qualifications all the time. Is this not just an accepted use of this language?

Regardless, Kerrigan still has no way of proving that a majority of Democrats are racists anyway, not even with his superior argumentative abilities.

[Chuckit]

I don't think it's meant to be proven — it appears to be inductive reasoning.;

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Generalizations only have to be generally true. There's no need to "prove" "they are all racists."

Yes, but to base generalizations on one incident w/o proving that this is a generally accepted view is prejudice.

-t

[besson3c]

That's fine, he should have presented his arguments with a "based on my experience", or "in my opinion" rather than presenting them as actual fact without expecting having to defend his beliefs in a rational manner.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but to base generalizations on one incident w/o proving that this is a generally accepted view is prejudice.

-t

Definitely, and not recognizing your own prejudice is ignorance.

[turtle777]

And btw, if we want to talk about racism, please talk about the standards we want to use to measure racism in political parties.

Does anyone believe that the Democracks are more racist than the Republicracks ?

-t

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

White Democrats are extraordinarily racist, just beneath the surface of their facade. NON-white Democrats are just flat out racist and don't even bother trying to hide it (just look at Whoopi Goldberg).

Yeah, White Democrats are racist, that's why we've just nominated a black man for our presidential candidate, who won those almost-all-white states like Iowa and Maine and Minnesota and Kansas and Nebraska etc., and that's why we have two current black governors, and that's why we have dozens of African-Americans in Congress. And of course Republicans do not have a single comparable black elected official.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And of course Republicans do not have a single comparable black elected official.

Exactly right.

It's almost like some people here think it's ok to be a racist Republican, but if you are even slightly racist and Democrat, then you are teh bad.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but to base generalizations on one incident w/o proving that this is a generally accepted view is prejudice.

-t

Yeah, I just have a pet peeve about how people will answer any generalization, no matter how valid, with "Oh, every single one is that way? I bet you can't prove that!"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, I just have a pet peeve about how people will answer any generalization, no matter how valid, with "Oh, every single one is that way? I bet you can't prove that!"

Both extremes are silly.

But without it, the PWL would be full of empty threads.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, I just have a pet peeve about how people will answer any generalization, no matter how valid, with "Oh, every single one is that way? I bet you can't prove that!"

What political generalizations have been made in the history of MacNN that were widely accepted as valid? In the context of political discussion, it is nearly impossible to make an accurate generalization based on our own narrow experiences in our area of the country. Heck, if we can't agree that this current administration is incompetent and has performed poorly (which is also a generalization), what can we agree on?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What political generalizations have been made in the history of MacNN that were widely accepted as valid? In the context of political discussion, it is nearly impossible to make an accurate generalization based on our own narrow experiences in our area of the country. Heck, if we can't agree that this current administration is incompetent and has performed poorly (which is also a generalization), what can we agree on?

Bah, you Canadians are all alike.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, I just have a pet peeve about how people will answer any generalization, no matter how valid, with "Oh, every single one is that way? I bet you can't prove that!"

Are you saying that everybody who challenges a generalization says that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Bah, you Canadians are all alike.

The Mets are all alike too... They all wear the same uniform.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, White Democrats are racist, that's why we've just nominated a black man for our presidential candidate, who won those almost-all-white states like Iowa and Maine and Minnesota and Kansas and Nebraska etc., and that's why we have two current black governors, and that's why we have dozens of African-Americans in Congress. And of course Republicans do not have a single comparable black elected official.

Gerrymandered districts help with that.

[besson3c]

You guys are indeed truly losing your edge.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, White Democrats are racist, that's why we've just nominated a black man for our presidential candidate, and that's why we have two current black governors, and that's why we have dozens of African-Americans in Congress.

You gotta throw every dog some scraps now and then. They aren't satisfied for long just licking your plate. How would you retain their loyalty otherwise?

Throwing up token positions for the sake of making an impression hasn't given that block anything they didn't have 30 years ago.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

You gotta throw every dog some scraps now and then. They aren't satisfied for long just licking your plate. How would you retain their loyalty otherwise?

Throwing up token positions for the sake of making an impression hasn't given that block anything they didn't have 30 years ago.

I think this post - with its dog metaphor and your view that blacks are not only bought for scraps, but stupid to boot - makes your thinking on the issue quite clear.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think this post - with its dog metaphor and your view that blacks are not only bought for scraps, but stupid to boot - makes your thinking on the issue quite clear.

Clearly.

It says the metaphor is apt.
It says your original statement was naive and awash in political correctness neutered of reality.
And it says that the impression of political position is usually just that. An impression.

Lastly, the implication of stupidity wasn't meant to extend to them as much as it was to be applied to the source of the statement I was responding to.

[Ghoser777]

The half-ing thing happened on the republican side to, and for the same reason. South Carolina had their primary to early, so half of the delegate votes were taken away.

South Carolina Republican primary, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

You gotta throw every dog some scraps now and then. They aren't satisfied for long just licking your plate. How would you retain their loyalty otherwise?

Throwing up token positions for the sake of making an impression hasn't given that block anything they didn't have 30 years ago.

Wow... I didn't realize president of the US was a token position now.

[Luca Rescigno]

White Republicans are racist.

This is proven because George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Look at me, I'm posting in the PWL!

[besson3c]

Luca: I think we need to make an official thread about white Republicans being racist

Sometimes this place is profoundly unintentionally funny.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Clearly.

It says the metaphor is apt.
It says your original statement was naive and awash in political correctness neutered of reality.
And it says that the impression of political position is usually just that. An impression.

Lastly, the implication of stupidity wasn't meant to extend to them as much as it was to be applied to the source of the statement I was responding to.

Right, my original statement, which was a statement of fact that all black elected officials are Democrats, was naive, politically correct, and neutered of reality.

And I'm sure you were trying to call me stupid, because that would hardly be new from you. But the fact remains that my post was a statement of fact that you cannot refute. And no, insults aren't refutations, in case you were wondering.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

How shameful for the Democrats, that they would make Michigan and Florida votes count as 'half' that of votes cast by every other man or woman.

I think people should pissed at Michigan and Florida representatives, not the Democrats in general. They knew what the punishment would be for moving the primaries, and they did it anyway.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Luca: I think we need to make an official thread about white Republicans being racist

Sometimes this place is profoundly unintentionally funny.

Hmm, something to think about.
I love Jet Noise: Democrat vs Republican...Which Party Is More Racist ?

IS the Republican party a party of racists ?
IS the Democratic party a party of decent, upstanding idealism ?

"To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854," the calendar notes. "Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the south, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party's terrorist wing."

Here`s some Republican racism for you:


May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."

July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican.

America's first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870.

On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first black governor.

America's first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force's and Army's first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

President Reagan named Colin Powell America's first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State.

[besson3c]

Chongo: I'm sorry you went through all that trouble to come up with this data on the internet. I do not care. My point which you missed is that this cannot be measured, and thus does not yield us any useful information.

[Luca Rescigno]

Most of those examples you gave involve "southern Democrats" anyway. Anything before the 30s can be thrown out since it was such a long time ago and politics have changed so much since then.

The September 14th, 1874 incident in Louisiana was not led by the Democratic party as you imply. It was a group of former Confederate racists calling themselves the "White League." And yes, they rioted against Republicans. Like I said, this was over 130 years ago and the party structure has changed significantly since then.

Chongo, your entire post is just a gigantic straw man. There isn't a single meaningful fact in there. Given the degree to which you've twisted up the language, I can't trust a damn word you say. And referring to things that happened so long ago certainly doesn't prove anything other than people were really racist in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A lot of people still are. But that has less to do with parties and more to do with uneducated people.