Prior to the 2010 elections I don't think they had any
Herman Cain enters 2012 GOP presidential race
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
Prior to the 2010 elections I don't think they had any
The study is not "paper trading." If you would read it, you would see that it measures actual voter behavior, election by election. It's as "real world" as it gets. It statistically controls for self-selection and shows that Democrats are every bit as racist in the voting booth as Republicans. But, of course, you continue to insist that Yale University and the Washington Post are lying about all this.
Real world results say they are wrong
Democrats-Black President,Black Governor,40 Black Congressmen
Republicans-2 black congressmen
According to their study it should be
Republicans-2 black congressmen
Democrats-2 black congressmen
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cs4Gj7JsET4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Ahh, so black people should vote for black interests. Blacks are not wrong to look at issues in terms of "what's in it for the blacks?".
So, since we're all equal and everything, white people should also be able to vote for white interests, and look at things in terms of what's in it for white people? Therefore white people should vote for white candidates and republicans, because they better serve white interests, right?
By your logic, white people should all vote for white republican candidates, since they best serve white interests. The other, non white and non republican candidates will act against the best interest of their constituencies, so they shouldn't vote for them. Sounds fair to me, right?
So, since we're all equal and everything, white people should also be able to vote for white interests, and look at things in terms of what's in it for white people? Therefore white people should vote for white candidates and republicans, because they better serve white interests, right?
By your logic, white people should all vote for white republican candidates, since they best serve white interests. The other, non white and non republican candidates will act against the best interest of their constituencies, so they shouldn't vote for them. Sounds fair to me, right?
I don't recall my post saying any of that
You said that if blacks run as republicans, that they are necessarily running "against their constituents best interest", so black voters shouldn't vote for them.
This means that blacks should otherwise vote for black politicians if they aren't running as republicans because blacks who aren't running as republicans ARE running in the best interest of blacks. So essentially black democrats are looking out for "black interests".
Well, assuming we have a symmetrical standard, then the same logic and criteria should apply to white people. White people should vote for white politicians, who will look out for the "interest of their constituencies" also. If democrats can be trusted to look out for black interests, then republicans must look out for white interests. So, by your logic, white people should vote for white republicans, since they will act in the best interest of white people. Right?
Or are you suggesting that white people should vote for someone who will look out for someone else's interest instead of theirs?
This means that blacks should otherwise vote for black politicians if they aren't running as republicans because blacks who aren't running as republicans ARE running in the best interest of blacks. So essentially black democrats are looking out for "black interests".
Well, assuming we have a symmetrical standard, then the same logic and criteria should apply to white people. White people should vote for white politicians, who will look out for the "interest of their constituencies" also. If democrats can be trusted to look out for black interests, then republicans must look out for white interests. So, by your logic, white people should vote for white republicans, since they will act in the best interest of white people. Right?
Or are you suggesting that white people should vote for someone who will look out for someone else's interest instead of theirs?
Quote from AK Forty Seven:
I don't recall my post saying any of that
Quote from Artful D0dger:
You said that if blacks run as republicans, that they are necessarily running "against their constituents best interest", so black voters shouldn't vote for them.
This means that blacks should otherwise vote for black politicians if they aren't running as republicans because blacks who aren't running as republicans ARE running in the best interest of blacks. So essentially black democrats are looking out for "black interests".
Well, assuming we have a symmetrical standard, then the same logic and criteria should apply to white people. White people should vote for white politicians, who will look out for the "interest of their constituencies" also. If democrats can be trusted to look out for black interests, then republicans must look out for white interests. So, by your logic, white people should vote for white republicans, since they will act in the best interest of white people. Right?
Or are you suggesting that white people should vote for someone who will look out for someone else's interest instead of theirs?
I said their constituents,are you aware that constituents can include black,white,latino, jews etc ?
You really need to drop the world is against white people stick up your ass,its still by far a whites man world
There is nothing stuck up my ass, that's your department.
It's still a "white man's world"? I'm not concerned with the world. I'm concerned with the nations which were built by white people. Here in America, white people are the only people who are legally discriminated against for jobs, education, business and home loans, education funding, and much more on the basis of their race. White people are by far the biggest victims of interracial crime. If it is still "by far a white man's world", then that's purely because white people have continued to out perform other groups despite the disadvantages they have and the degree to which the system discriminates against them.
In any case, you didn't answer the question. Should white people vote for the candidate which will best serve white interests, like all the other groups do? Like you say that all the other groups should? Should whites, like those groups, vote the the candidate which will do the most for white people and pursue white interests? Yes or no, and why?
It's still a "white man's world"? I'm not concerned with the world. I'm concerned with the nations which were built by white people. Here in America, white people are the only people who are legally discriminated against for jobs, education, business and home loans, education funding, and much more on the basis of their race. White people are by far the biggest victims of interracial crime. If it is still "by far a white man's world", then that's purely because white people have continued to out perform other groups despite the disadvantages they have and the degree to which the system discriminates against them.
In any case, you didn't answer the question. Should white people vote for the candidate which will best serve white interests, like all the other groups do? Like you say that all the other groups should? Should whites, like those groups, vote the the candidate which will do the most for white people and pursue white interests? Yes or no, and why?