Political Candidates

[KnightofChrist]

What I find amazing is that Bush III is even running, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in the center of KPD 0005+5106.

[Anomaly]

 

Maybe, if the sophomore class is far more economically and socially well off than the seniors.

exactly.   As if they border Mexico.  You're  welcome for the draft evaders in the 60 and 70's, otherwise plaid flannel and duct tape would be the national flag, eh?

[Era Might]

What I find amazing is that Bush III is even running, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in the center of KPD 0005+5106.

If Mitt Romney could get nominated I think Jeb could. The whole young fresh candidate thing worked for Obama but idk if a young Republican could pull it off. Old men work well.

[KnightofChrist]

Nah nah I mean win over all. Bush III will not win over all. And I don't really know or support him but I believe many underestimate Trump.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

exactly.   As if they border Mexico.  You're  welcome for the draft evaders in the 60 and 70's, otherwise plaid flannel and duct tape would be the national flag, eh?

The Dominion flag was better anyway.

[Socrates]

Yes, the Tea Party is awful. Politics is “the art of the possible.”  The Tea Party is led by people who advertise their inability to work towards what is possible.  They are bad at their jobs. And they are not any “cleaner” than mainstream politicians, either. I have seen Ted Cruz meet the press a bazillion times, and each time he is spinning like a washing machine. Not outright lying (very few politicians outright lie) but spinning. When he is on I can sit there with a copy of the talking points and listen to him basically read down the list.  The Tea Party rank and file don’t want to see this or they haven’t looked. They believe their leaders are “special” or “anointed.” It’s sad.

The Tea Party rank and file are overwhelmingly white and evangelical Christian; disproportionately fundamentalist and male. And old. They are fired up because they see the demographics and they know their time has come. But ALL is not lost.

The ground is soft on abortion right now, softer than at any time since Roe v Wade.  Younger people are biased towards the extension of individual rights and tend to favor more abortion restrictions. Hispanics are disproportionately pro-life. The pro-choicers feel the ground shifting under them, and they are panicking. The gay rights movement has done us the favor of erecting a conceptual scaffold and language in the culture . All that we have to do is climb that scaffold.

This is the moment where the Republican party can be reborn for the 21^st century.

 If I know conservatives, they will find a way to blow it.  Probably by nominating a cartoon character (Trump, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee etc.) instead of  someone who can represent the younger more diverse Republicans who are the future of the party.  An older/white/fundamentalist male cannot climb the scaffold, friends. They cannot do it.

You've written a post long on words, but incredibly short on substance.

For all your anti-Tea Party, anti-Cruz vitriol, you've yet to give one real concrete example of an actual policy or action in office of his that you find so awful and abhorrent, or of his alleged dishonesty.  Much less have you explained how he or other "Tea Partiers" are worse than all the RINO politicians in Congress making absolutely no serious effort whatever to oppose Obama's disastrous policies, reduce the expansion of government, or reduce our skyrocketing debt, as they dishonestly promised voters.  

Instead of saying anything substantial about policy or actions, you've made vague accusations and insults, and recited the standard liberal media talking points and stereotypes about age, race, sex, and other such irrelevancies.  ("oh my goodness (don't blasphemy)!  Those horrible Old White Male Christian Guys!")  And, of course, the only reason anyone would have conservative beliefs in limited constitutional government and such, is that they're old, dying, and probably senile.  Otherwise, they'd be sensible and agree with Obama on everything.

(Presumably, your own father is an older white man, but I certainly wouldn't use that as a basis to automatically dismiss whatever he believes in or has to say.  And I certainly hope you don't.  And, un-pc as it is to say this, there's also nothing about being young, female, or black, etc. that automatically gives one superior wisdom in political matters.)

It's also the younger generations, not the old, that will be most hurt by the inevitable bankrupting consequences of our current out of control rate of spending and debt.  (This point should be emphasized a lot more by conservatives.)

And I don't think Cruz is a messiah; it's simply that out of this year's candidates, he's the one whose policies and record most closely reflect my own political views.  (Your remarks about messianism would much more accurately describe the Democratic base.)  For the record, I don't think Rubio's horrible, either; he's just weaker on some of the issues than Cruz is.

And ironically, for all your railing about Old White Guys, Cruz happens to be the second-youngest candidate in the field, and he's Hispanic (not that it matters to me one way or the other).

 

If the Republican Party's going to be reborn, it will be by electing real, principled conservative, who are able to strongly, clearly, and positively articulate conservative principles, like Reagan did in the '80s.  It won't be one by electing more phony "moderate" RINOs who stand for nothing.  No one gets fired up over a gutless, nutless party that stands for nothing, or that is little more than a pale copy of the Democrats.  Besides, they ran RINOs the past two presidential elections, and they lost.

 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Socrates

[Socrates]

 

not sure if that's racist, stereo type, bigotry, ideological, close minded, myopic, sophomoric, sexist, intolerant, or brilliance beyond my comprehension.  

If it's brilliance, it's way beyond my comprehension.  But then again, I'm one of those dumb White Male types.

 

Is what it is, my friend. When large swaths of the country see an old white fundamentalist Christian Republican man, they proceed to ignore everything he might have to say to them. If such a person starts campaigning for equal rights for the unborn, they will be dismissed as a hypocrite. Is what it is.

We all know how successful minority conservative Republican candidates and and politicians have been in winning support over from the Democratic base.  (Absolutely nothing against them, but it's just the cold, hard political reality.  Any black conservative is tarred and feathered as an "Uncle Tom," "traitor," "clown in blackface," etc.)

Conservative women are similarly trashed by the libs.

[Peace]

We all know how successful minority conservative Republican candidates and and politicians have been in winning support over from the Democratic base.  (Absolutely nothing against them, but it's just the cold, hard political reality.  Any black conservative is tarred and feathered as an "Uncle Tom," "traitor," "clown in blackface," etc.)

I don't think so - just the ones who are in fact uncle toms. I don't think anybody accused Colin Powell or Tony Brown of selling out. . . 

I had thought that Rubio was too young. But I have been listening to him a bit after the first debate. He seems like he could be a good President. I liked him. None of the other candidates really gave off a "Presidential" vibe to me other than Rubio. He would pretty much guarantee a FL win which is huge, and perhaps he could cut a fair portion of the Latino vote as well - at least we would not get trounced here as much as last time . . .

[Socrates]

I don't think so - just the ones who are in fact uncle toms. I don't think anybody accused Colin Powell or Tony Brown of selling out. . . 

Only if actually taking conservative stances makes you an "Uncle Tom."  Perhaps you can provide some concrete examples of prominent black conservatives actually taking racist stands against their race.

Colin Powell is a complete RINO who actually sides with the liberal Democrats on most issues.  I'm honestly not sure why he even affiliates as Republican.  (Tony Brown I'm honestly not that familiar with.)

Really, I find the whole idea that in order to be "really black," a person must adhere to a certain ideology, to be idiotic, and frankly, a bit racist.

 

My initial point, though, is that it's naive to think that simply running a young/black/female/atheist/whatever is an easy magic bullet for GOP victory at the polls.  In reality, it would be an uphill struggle.

[Peace]

Well there is no denying that he has moved left in his old age. I don't think Reagan, Bush or very many other people considered him RINO when they appointed him in the 80's and 90's.

I doubt that taking a conservative stance makes one a sellout. Heck. Find yourself a book of Malcom X speeches or go on YouTube. He says about 1000 times that black people need to get their act together, stop killing each other, build their own schools, create their own businesses, and stop blaming white people for their problems and begging them for a handout. It sounds pretty conservative to me.

So what's the difference? People understood that Malcolm X said things like that because he believed and desired that they would actually benefit black people. Many white conservatives (and black conservatives who get called a sellout) seem to say those things not out of any real concern for the well being of black people, but simply as a means of deflecting attention away from legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. You can see plenty of examples of this with many of the recent police incidents reported in the news - you see people raising the issue of black on black crime in order to deflect attention away from alleged police misconduct. Here is a perfect example of it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/meet-the-press/giuliani---dyson-argue-over-violence-in-black-communities-362441283717

As for the example you wanted - didn't Ben Carson recently say some nonsense about Obamacare being the worse thing in America since slavery? Any black person who gets up on a stage and says such an asinine thing is a suspected sellout - and I hope I don't have to explain why.

But I actually agree with your main point. Putting XYZ on the ticket isn't going to be a magic bullet to victory.

But on the other hand - it is becoming clear that with changing demographics that the Southern Strategy is no longer viable. Obama put a state like Virginia in play. So, the Republican Party has to diversify in order to survive, and the reality is that the majority of minorities (who will be a majority at some point in the next decades) view the Republican Party as unwelcoming to people with brown skin.  That's a problem that you need to address, whether or not the perception is justified.

[CatherineM]

I'm glad I still get to vote in the U.S.  

[Socrates]

Well there is no denying that he has moved left in his old age. I don't think Reagan, Bush or very many other people considered him RINO when they appointed him in the 80's and 90's.

I doubt that taking a conservative stance makes one a sellout. Heck. Find yourself a book of Malcom X speeches or go on YouTube. He says about 1000 times that black people need to get their act together, stop killing each other, build their own schools, create their own businesses, and stop blaming white people for their problems and begging them for a handout. It sounds pretty conservative to me.

So what's the difference? People understood that Malcolm X said things like that because he believed and desired that they would actually benefit black people. Many white conservatives (and black conservatives who get called a sellout) seem to say those things not out of any real concern for the well being of black people, but simply as a means of deflecting attention away from legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. You can see plenty of examples of this with many of the recent police incidents reported in the news - you see people raising the issue of black on black crime in order to deflect attention away from alleged police misconduct. Here is a perfect example of it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/meet-the-press/giuliani---dyson-argue-over-violence-in-black-communities-362441283717

As for the example you wanted - didn't Ben Carson recently say some nonsense about Obamacare being the worse thing in America since slavery? Any black person who gets up on a stage and says such an asinine thing is a suspected sellout - and I hope I don't have to explain why.

 

Under Reagan and Bush, Powell served his duties as Secretary of State, and didn't speak out much about his opinions on domestic issues until he later flirted with running for President, and it was then that his left-leaning positions on many of these issues were made publicly known.

 

As for the issue of black on black crime, there's still no getting around the true objective fact that, all emotions, hype, and politics aside, black on black crime does kill far, far more black persons than white cops.  And in a number of cases (Ferguson, for instance) there is no clear evidence that the cop actually acted wrongly, much less that he was racially motivated (though I don't have time to rehash the entire Ferguson debate again).  One could just as easily (and much more convincingly, imo) argue that the furor over the police shootings is a distraction from the more important issue of crime and such that is destroying black communities and taking black lives.  If i recall, you also got offended over persons suggesting that abortions of black babies was a  major problem.

I'm not clear exactly what makes Mr. Dyson's opinions on the matter any less legitimate than your own.

It looks to me like "Uncle Tom" is simply a nasty slur used by liberals to discredit and demean any black person who takes a stance outside the left-wing Sharpton/Jackson orthodoxy, and thus encourage group-think and shut out dissent.  

If a white person says anything about problems afflicting blacks, it's "how dare you ignorant honkies lecture us on our own problems!"  If a black man says the same things, then he's an "Uncle Tom" and a "sell-out."  Just can't win.  

I honestly have no idea what Ben Carson said about Obamacare.  Perhaps you can provide an actual quote and a source before attacking him.  But if that's in fact what he did say, it may be hyperbolic or excessive, but hardly racist or anti-black.

In fact, it would be no different than standard left-wing rhetoric, as liberals and leftists, both black and white, frequently make hyperbolic and asinine comparisons to slavery, with regards to everything from free-market "capitalism" to Republican governance.  (You may recall Joe Biden's "They're gonna put y'all back in chains!" remark to a cheering black audience.)  But apparently, that sort of thing is only offensive racism when it when it comes from the political right.

 

[Peace]

Socrates:

The point is - people thought that Powell was a Republican "not in name only" during those years. But nobody called him a sellout even though he was perceived as a solid Republican.

Yes blacks kill more blacks than the police do. Whites also kill whites more than the police do. That is rather obvious and no one has denied it. Everyone agrees that reducing crime is a good thing.

The point is that black on black crime and police misconduct are BOTH issues that can, should, and are being addressed. What Giuliani (and others) essentially said was "let's not talk about police misconduct because black on black crime is a problem." It is an attempt to deflect away attention from one issue by raising another. Giuliani is not raising the issue of black on black crime because he cares about black people. He is raising the issue so that people will stop talking about police misconduct. It would be the same, for example, as someone who raises the issue of abortion in a thread where the discussion is focused on the Confederate Flag.

As for the protests about police shootings taking attention away from the issue of black on black crime - I doubt it. You rarely hear whites voice any concern over black on black crime except where it is being used to distract attention away from another issue. It is not as though black on black crime is something that whites would give major attention to if police misconduct were not in the news.

As for blacks, we do in fact already spend plenty of time speaking (and demonstrating) against crime in our neighborhoods.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/why-dont-black-people-protest-black-on-black-violence/255329/

Do things like that decrease when attention is given to police misconduct? I do not see any evidence to support that. Black people care about both issues. A desire to address the issue of police misconduct does not lessen the desire to reduce crime (just as a desire to address the issue of the Confederate Flag does not lessen the desire to reduce abortion).

And do r the record - I took offense at your attempt attempt to tell black people what their biggest problems are, when as a non African American you should be asking us what our biggest problems are. You tell a child what it's problems are. You ask an adult what his problems are. So by your assertions that XYZ issues are the biggest problem facing blacks you equated us to children. And I took offense at what appeared to be an attempt to distract attention away from the issue being discussed. I have no problem with someone raising the issue of abortion among blacks or any other group. Please start a thread on it if you desire.

And again - your assertion that black people who speak out on problems such as black on black crime or problems in the black community are called sellouts is false. I already gave you one example of a well known political figure. And there are plenty of black people in black communities speaking out on those issues and trying to improve the lives of black youth every day. They aren't being called sellouts because they actually care about black people. They are not raising the issues to further their political careers or deflect attention away from other legitimate issues that deserve attention.

As for Ben Carson - you asked for an example. I gave you one. You can Google the quote if you want.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/

Do you understand why blacks would take offense to that? If you don't - then you don't have a good understanding of black Americans. And if you don't have a good understanding of a people, I think you can imagine why they would take offense at your attempt to lecture them.

[KnightofChrist]

 It would be the same, for example, as someone who raises the issue of abortion in a thread where the discussion is focused on the Confederate Flag.

Absolutely false, let's set the historical and factual record straight here. Before the original thread was disgracefully hijacked with completely off-topic discussions of the Confederate Flag it focused on the mass murder of African-Americans in Charleston, SC. The Rebel flag discussion served the purpose of diverting and taking away both national and phatmass attention from the actual threat and topic, the mass murder of African-Americans. Abortion in a vast amount of cases is the mass-murder of African Americans, what happened in Charleston was the mass-murder of African-Americans. In a discussion about the mass-murder of African-Americans, discussing other forms of mass-murder of African-Americans is not going to get people to stop talking about the mass-murder of African-Americans. However discussions of inanimate objects in a discussion about the mass-murder African-Americans will and has served the purpose of diverting attention away from that threat.

===

Also for historical fact Colin Powell was attacked outright or by implication as being a sellout, uncle tom, house *blank* by many on the left including but not limited to Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, The Daily Kos, Louis Farrakhan.

[Peace]

Absolutely false, let's set the historical and factual record straight here. Before the original thread was disgracefully hijacked with completely off-topic discussions of the Confederate Flag it focused on the mass murder of African-Americans in Charleston, SC. The Rebel flag discussion served the purpose of diverting and taking away both national and phatmass attention from the actual threat and topic, the mass murder of African-Americans. Abortion in a vast amount of cases is the mass-murder of African Americans, what happened in Charleston was the mass-murder of African-Americans. In a discussion about the mass-murder of African-Americans, discussing other forms of mass-murder of African-Americans is not going to get people to stop talking about the mass-murder of African-Americans. However discussions of inanimate objects in a discussion about the mass-murder African-Americans will and has served the purpose of diverting attention away from that threat.

===

Also for historical fact Colin Powell was attacked outright or by implication as being a sellout, uncle tom, house *blank* by many on the left including but not limited to Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, The Daily Kos, Louis Farrakhan.

Knight:

That seems to be a fair point. I don't remember all of the details about what happened in that thread. It was my perception that the issue was raised in order to intentionally deflect attention away from the Confederate Flag, but if you say it was not I will take your word for it. Perhaps I was wrong.

I would disagree with your assertion that bringing up the issue of abortion is not ultimately a distraction from the issue of the specific murders that were being discussed, however. But that is something that people can reasonably disagree upon I suppose. I think you can agree that if Person A and Person B were saying to one another "Isn't it terrible how those people were murdered in church?" and person C jumps into the conversation and says "WELL, while we are on the topic of murder, what about all the black babies who get murdered by abortion every year!?" it would be a bit off-topic. You could expect Person A and B to look at you and think "what is wrong with you buddy?"

Now - whether it went down like that in that thread is something that I do not remember. If you say it did not then that is cool by me.

As for Powell, I do not know what they said, but it is not not as though Sharpton or Farrakhan represent the voice of black Americans (or the voice of the left). Every black person gets called a sellout by somebody at some point for some reason. I am sure you can find somebody who called Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X a sellout at some point. I, as a black Amercian, do not recall there being much sentiment among us that Powell was sold out, notwisthanding comments that certain so-called black leaders may have made. I think Cornel West called Obama a sellout - but not too many people take him seriously . . .

For what it's worth, I think that some black conservatives (such as Clarence Thomas, for example) have been unfairly branded with that label. On the other hand - selling out does in fact exist. For various historical reasons blacks have been taught to hate other blacks and that is very much a part of our culture and manifested by most blacks to varying degrees. Heck - every black person knows that light-skinned children tend to get treated better than the dark-skinned ones, and that light-skinned black women are seen by black men as more attractive partners than dark-skinned women. So - I would not talk about selling out as some kind of mythical phenomenon that does not exist. It very much exists, and an anti-black mindset is very much ingrained in the mind of many blacks (and whites) - again, for historical reasons. . . if it walks like Uncle Ruckus and talks like Uncle Ruckus . . .

Peace

Edited August 17, 2015 by Peace