Letters to the Editor
-
@sugarman
Ahh, in response to your last reply to me (in another thread), in which you stated that "that's the problem with illegal immigrants -- they become legal and get to vote".
Here is my measured reply:
/"
|./|
| |
| |
|>~<|
| |
/'| |/'..
/~| | | |
| =[@]= | |
| | | | |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ |` )
| /
/
/
/
| |
| |
So much for "bringing together the Democratic Party".
-
lol, that didn't come out right
Just for you, then, sugarman:
http://www.textfiles.com/art/afinger.txt
-
SkylarDexter
you do realize that McCain has the same policies of Bush, who is not a moderate?
You do realize that more American troops in Iraq are committing suicide than dying in combat?
my country before silliness
you can sign me a batshit crazy Obama supporter...like more than half of the country...
And to other voters like SkylarDexter, you will probably be happier back in the party of Bush than you have been in the Democratic Party anyway. I do not believe that any true supporter of Hillary Clinton and what she stands for would ever vote for John McCain.
Please have a nice day.
-
doloresflower
Lace 'em up
"making assumptions about black voters...why they voted the way they did...is not kosher.
I don't want to use the "racism" word, but how would you like it if someone made assumptions about your vote based on your skin color?
Unless you have spoken with every black person in America, conducted a study, referred to a study, have in short evidence, every assumption you make is an assumption."
Sorry, but this is just lazy. It lumps together "assumption" with wild whims based on airy nothings just because one hasn't nailed down every, well, nail. Gravity is an "assumption" then. Evolution is an "assumption". One can make valid analysis based on facts at hands--simply because one doesn't have every single iota of information doesn't make that analysis invalid. Or, in this case, racist. For instance, I strike out against the same batter 100 times in a row. Then I get good hits the next five. Would someone be crazy nuts to "assume" I'd changed something? Of course not.
I'm not making assumptions based on what half the black voters are doing, or three-quarters of the black voters are doing, I'm analyzing based on what 90 percent of them are doing. That in and of itself is a startlingly huge percentage that starts to allow for some group dynamic analysis. Especially as it is over such a huge sampling--in other words, I'm not making assumptions based on 20 black voters, or black voters in rural areas, or black voters in the South. We're talking near 90 percent of all black voters--which means you can toss out regional, economic, gender, etc.differences. And policy variables are also somewhat controlled for since the two options are so similar. Yes, of course some blacks are voting for Obama because he was against the war more, or because they prefer his slightly different health care plan to Hillary's, but c'mon--they prefer his slightly-different plan enough to vote so disproportionately so? And they're the single population who does so? Even seniors and the very young--the two huge winning segments for Hillary and Barak respectively--don't vote as monolithically as 90 percent.
"Black voters count"
And this is exactly the crap I'm talking about. Where, where, where did I ever say blacks don't count? Where? Because I note that they are voting 90 percent for Barak? That is a fact. Because I say that many are doing so because of race after (that's the key word) after they've determined his policies are at least as good and his chances of winning are at least as good? how does that discount them? How exactly?
"Bill Clinton had a 90% approval rating amongst black voters during his impeachment and the approval of only 50% of white people in the same period. Were you making assumptions about black voters when this was going on? White voters?"
You're comparing apples and pineapples. Race becomes a voting metric (after the other stuff) between Hillary and Obama because their differences on substance are so insignificant to many, which makes other reasons--race, gender--more at hand. Those differences are not insignificant when comparing two options that are much more dissimilar and so race and gender don't play an issue, because those are lesser reasons (for the vast majority of people) to vote for a candidate. Car metaphor. You have to choose between two models of Prius. The only differences are one is red and one is silver, and the red one has three cupholders and the silver one has five. Is there something wrong with picking the one based on the color you like? Of course not. Now you have to choose (the metaphorical cars are free by the way) between a red Prius and a 1978 Crown Royal with dents all over, a missing gas cap, no air bags, and it gets 7 miles to the gallon. But it's silver. Now are you going to pick based on color? Of course not.
"Back your assumptions up with evidence of inention and not merely your intuitive conclusion, or stop ayour assertions that black people are less sophisticated or intelligent when they cast their vote then you are when you cast yours."
I don't think blacks are less sophisticated or intelligent. I think that people who read that into my posts, however, are less sophisticated or intelligent. Again, where does anything I say impugn the intelligence of blacks? Where? Do I say they're voting against their economic interests and choosing race over economics? No. Do I say they're voting against their social policy interests and choosing race as their number one reason? No. Do I even say it doesn't make sense for them to vote for Obama? No, I actually think it would be less intelligent.
And it isn't "intuition" and it is evidence based. Again, a 90 percent vote. What other voting segment is voting in 90 percent blocks? Youth? Elderly? Women? Hispanics? You can't name one. So we have a singular voting segment voting 90 percent lock-step across economic, social, and regional lines for the one candidate who also just so happens to match that same voting segment? And the only other times that same segment voted at 90 percent in a dem primary was for the other candidate who happened to match that same segment? And it's "intuition" to draw a conclusion based on that? Thank god you aren't in charge of our science or medical programs.
There is justifiable sensitivity and there is hypersensitivity. And calling these arguments racists is hyper. that's what hurts Americans and the party, not pointing out simple reality using our minds.