• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Obama: African Americans too dumb to vote in nonpartisan system

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a difference between non partisian and mob rule. The laws that where changed created mob rule, while supporting the people that can create the most money.

The ruling was not against blacks, because that would be racists. It was to protect the poor.
 
heh?

Im gonna guess you posted in the wrong thread or have not bothered to read anything related to this one.....

this was about them holding an election without party affiliations........ and the justice dept clearly stating that unless a candidate has the word Democrat beside his name on the ballot then black people wont know who to vote for

I can only interpret your response as ... its not the black people that are too stupid....... its the poor people that are too stupid........ so by having the word Democrat by a candidates name the stupid poor people arent disenfranchised.... wtg.... score one for the stupid poor people... DOH!
 
copestag said:
heh?

Im gonna guess you posted in the wrong thread or have not bothered to read anything related to this one.....

this was about them holding an election without party affiliations........ and the justice dept clearly stating that unless a candidate has the word Democrat beside his name on the ballot then black people wont know who to vote for

I can only interpret your response as ... its not the black people that are too stupid....... its the poor people that are too stupid........ so by having the word Democrat by a candidates name the stupid poor people arent disenfranchised.... wtg.... score one for the stupid poor people... DOH!
Click to expand...

Exactly! That is exactly what the DOJ was insinuating.
 
The ruling was in regard to an effort by the Stephen LaRoque to REMOVE the party affiliation from ballots. As I am sure YOU know, some people vote by party rather than by individual candidate.

Non-partisan elections deny pertinent information to voters. This was simply another attempt by a Republican to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

LaRoque is noted for, among other things:

holding the jobless hostage to deep budget cuts

professing to hate government while personally profiting from a business that distributes government loans

calling the leader of the local NAACP a racist

Congratulations on the trolling post with stale news.
 
noah way said:
The ruling was in regard to an effort by the Stephen LaRoque to REMOVE the party affiliation from ballots. As I am sure YOU know, some people vote by party rather than by individual candidate.

Non-partisan elections deny pertinent information to voters. This was simply another attempt by a Republican to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

LaRoque is noted for, among other things:

holding the jobless hostage to deep budget cuts

professing to hate government while personally profiting from a business that distributes government loans

calling the leader of the local NAACP a racist

Congratulations on the trolling post with stale news.
Click to expand...

Let's not ignore the fact that this measure was the result of a popular local election that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
 
ya but the poor and the black voters are stupid is what we are being told.... if there wasnt a party affiliation attached to the measure they couldnt possibly have known what they were voting for
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Let's not ignore the fact that this measure was the result of a popular local election that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
Click to expand...
Which is mob rule.

The two party system was created to prevent the above system from occurring.

Lets sum it up.

1.) One party controls the city, democrats according the article. To hide the fact that only democrats are being elected they are removing the title "democrat." Why? Because it is very easy to hide among the sheep, if you are dressed as a sheep. Republicans can not win with the republican title added to the poll. So by removing party, they insert other factors into the election.

2.) Mob rule, at one point in time it was over whelming popular to own other people. So stop with the whelming popular, it is not a good argument.

3.) Removing the party affiliation will also allow for a manchurian candidate to be created. The perfect candidate that will say anything to get elected. See obama, if you are in doubt what a manchurian candidate is.

4.) With out party, money will be the only way to get elected. Since the voting will be based on what the public knows about the candidate, the person with most money will be known by the public best. The candidate with most money, wins, not a good idea for democracy. See presidential elections.

5.) Lastly, it will create a system in which it is possible to have many candidates running for 1 position. With 10 people running for 1 position, you could get a person elected to office with as little as 10% of the total vote. With a two party system, you have to get at least 50% of the vote.
With out the two party system, you create a system in which you spend million to flood the ballot with 10 candidates, making so you just need to spend enough money, to get elected. If you need more, see iran ballot system.
 
RiverOfIce said:
Which is mob rule.

The two party system was created to prevent the above system from occurring.

Lets sum it up.

1.) One party controls the city, democrats according the article. To hide the fact that only democrats are being elected they are removing the title "democrat." Why? Because it is very easy to hide among the sheep, if you are dressed as a sheep. Republicans can not win with the republican title added to the poll. So by removing party, they insert other factors into the election.

2.) Mob rule, at one point in time it was over whelming popular to own other people. So stop with the whelming popular, it is not a good argument.

3.) Removing the party affiliation will also allow for a manchurian candidate to be created. The perfect candidate that will say anything to get elected. See obama, if you are in doubt what a manchurian candidate is.

4.) With out party, money will be the only way to get elected. Since the voting will be based on what the public knows about the candidate, the person with most money will be known by the public best. The candidate with most money, wins, not a good idea for democracy. See presidential elections.

5.) Lastly, it will create a system in which it is possible to have many candidates running for 1 position. With 10 people running for 1 position, you could get a person elected to office with as little as 10% of the total vote. With a two party system, you have to get at least 50% of the vote.
With out the two party system, you create a system in which you spend million to flood the ballot with 10 candidates, making so you just need to spend enough money, to get elected. If you need more, see iran ballot system.
Click to expand...

1) Democrats will continue to control the city if the voters are capable of determining if the candidate's political positions are in-line with what the Democratic Party stands for.

2) Mob rule only occurs when the majority uses its power to trample on the rights of minorities. This is not the case here. This actually helps a minority group (Republicans).

3) Obama, as a manchurian candidate, ran under a partisan banner (Democratic). Bad example.

4) You don't need money to get elected in a local election in a very small town. The article stated that many of the town's voters felt that nonpartisan was the way to go. Many localities, even in New York City, have nonpartisan elections. This actually bolsters the chances of third party and independent candidates of winning. The majority party usually still retains its majority, but healthy debate from differing viewpoints are allowed to occur more.

5) Runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Problem solved.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
1) Democrats will continue to control the city if the voters are capable of determining if the candidate's political positions are in-line with what the Democratic Party stands for.

2) Mob rule only occurs when the majority uses its power to trample on the rights of minorities. This is not the case here. This actually helps a minority group (Republicans).

3) Obama, as a manchurian candidate, ran under a partisan banner (Democratic). Bad example.

4) You don't need money to get elected in a local election in a very small town. The article stated that many of the town's voters felt that nonpartisan was the way to go. Many localities, even in New York City, have nonpartisan elections. This actually bolsters the chances of third party and independent candidates of winning. The majority party usually still retains its majority, but healthy debate from differing viewpoints are allowed to occur more.

5) Runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I do not even know where to start.

1.) Because you are not popular should not give you the right to create a new system to make yourself popular. If they want to change what they stand for, maybe people will vote for them.

2.)100% wrong. Try again, the vast majority of the time, it is the will of a few enforcing on the many. (remember there was more slaves, women and servants then where was free people).

3.)Obama was, but is the perfect example. I am not democrat.

4.)100% wrong, sorry, but most elections takes 100's of thousands of dollars.

5.) You post the problem was the solution. Run off just require you to have less candidates. You run off with 10 of your canidates, spending a few hundred dollars. Then you run off the top 2 with thousands. They still are all your candidates. SEE IRAN.

Everything you said is pretty much wrong, or supports my argument, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
 
RiverOfIce said:
I do not even know where to start.

1.) Because you are not popular should not give you the right to create a new system to make yourself popular. If they want to change what they stand for, maybe people will vote for them.

2.)100% wrong. Try again, the vast majority of the time, it is the will of a few enforcing on the many. (remember there was more slaves, women and servants then where was free people).

3.)Obama was, but is the perfect example. I am not democrat.

4.)100% wrong, sorry, but most elections takes 100's of thousands of dollars.

5.) You post the problem was the solution. Run off just require you to have less candidates. You run off with 10 of your canidates, spending a few hundred dollars. Then you run off the top 2 with thousands. They still are all your candidates. SEE IRAN.

Everything you said is pretty much wrong, or supports my argument, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
Click to expand...

1) The unpopular party didn't approve the system, though. The voters did.

2) What you are describing is called an oligarchy, not mob rule. Words have meaning, so use them correctly. Are you insisting that the position that gets the minority amount of votes wins the election in this town?

3) You not being a Democrat has nothing to do with the fact that Obama ran under a partisan banner. He ran at a time that the Republicans were unpopular, evidenced by their losses in Congress and statewide races that same year.

4) Candidates in very small towns often get elected just one personal recognition alone. And statewide races? Alvin Greene (South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate) says hi.

5) Runoff voting solves the problem you presented you said that the problem with a large pool of candidates is that someone can win the election with as little as 10% of the vote. If nobody gets a majority in the general election, the top two vote getters proceed to a runoff, where one of them will achieve the majority of votes.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
3) Obama, as a manchurian candidate, ran under a partisan banner (Democratic). Bad example.
Click to expand...

I am confused.

It's all I can do to follow something somewhere between near and not near history.

But the Manchurian Candidate - I'm rather familiar with that work. In fact - intimately familiar.

Please clarify for me, what does it mean - Obama, as a manchurian candidate.

There must be some meaning to that phrase that is obvious to newcomers to the book, but not the recent movie (or something?).

If you have a moment, please clarify, I'd like to be able to follow along.

Also - as this is the Politics and Current Affairs forum - and as you yourself say, the article you quote is an oldie but a goodie - it's not current affairs.

So - for those as confused as myself, maybe this is politics because of that Manchurian Candidate thing.

Please help me understand - what exactly is the goodie, what exactly is the point being made and refuted here?
 
EarlyMon said:
I am confused.

It's all I can do to follow something somewhere between near and not near history.

But the Manchurian Candidate - I'm rather familiar with that work. In fact - intimately familiar.

Please clarify for me, what does it mean - Obama, as a manchurian candidate.

There must be some meaning to that phrase that is obvious to newcomers to the book, but not the recent movie (or something?).

If you have a moment, please clarify, I'd like to be able to follow along.

Also - as this is the Politics and Current Affairs forum - and as you yourself say, the article you quote is an oldie but a goodie - it's not current affairs.

So - for those as confused as myself, maybe this is politics because of that Manchurian Candidate thing.

Please help me understand - what exactly is the goodie, what exactly is the point being made and refuted here?
Click to expand...

A manchurian candidate is someone who pretty much says or does anything to get elected.

Also, this is Politics and Current Affairs. I'd say that this falls under the category of politics.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A manchurian candidate is someone who pretty much says or does anything to get elected.

Also, this is Politics and Current Affairs. I'd say that this falls under the category of politics.
Click to expand...

A Manchurian candidate is a puppet, one who is controlled by someone else. In the US, that pretty much describes every candidate with the rare exception of those that are entirely self-financing (like NYC Mayor Bloomberg).

The forum is called Politics AND Current Affairs, not Politics OR Current Affairs. As stated before this is both stale and trolling.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A manchurian candidate is someone who pretty much says or does anything to get elected.

Also, this is Politics and Current Affairs. I'd say that this falls under the category of politics.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's definitely politics, I wasn't confused about that. ;) :)

I was surprised about your answer on that Manchurian Candidate thing - the original meaning for that was a candidate secretly working as a Communist agent to put the Commies in control of the White House.

I googled around to see how that had changed in recent times and instead found this:

Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate

That predates your article, so it's an oldie too. But it does support the original meaning of the term and flatly calls out the President as a true Manchurian Candidate - dirty, immoral, atheistic Commie and Marxist.

I thought you would find that interesting.

So - in your OP, while noting that your read and opinion of the article you cite is inflammatory, I guess I found the charge that our President is a Communist stooge equally inflammatory.

What I concluded from the article you cited was stated on the first page of it -
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom