logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Will White People Riot if McCain Loses?, Who will lose it and go off?
nighttimer
post Oct 30 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Newspaper columnist Wendi C. Thomas writing for The Root.com speculated on what might happen if Barack Obama lost the election.

Oct. 20, 2008-- "Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."

But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
link

In what has been a highly volatile campaign there have been numerous reports of racially motivated ugliness directed at Barack Obama. Some of the low points include the Ashley Todd hoax, the ATF arresting two skinheads who wanted to kill Obama along with shooting 88 people and decapitating 14 African-Americans and Obama being hung in effigy on the University of Kentucky campus.

The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Amlord
post Oct 31 2008, 03:33 PM
Post #41


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Oct 31 2008, 11:00 AM) *
Here's the thing, Amlord. I said this earlier in the thread:

QUOTE
If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races. He wouldn't be winning in the polls if he was only supported by blacks.


No one has yet to contradict my position that it's not just blacks who are passionate about Obama - because it can't be done. Logically, you see an Obama-Biden rally and there is a rainbow of faces. Look at the photo provided at the top of your own friggin link - could you ever mistake that for a Million Man march? So in keeping with another statement that I've made:


Luckily for me I never said that blacks would riot either way. I said Democrats will riot.

The reason that I think more Democrats are more likely to riot is that they are more likely to make decisions based upon emotions rather than facts. Nobody is calling McCain "transformational" (what they heck does that mean?). Nobody has false hopes (i.e. hopes not based on any facts) that McCain will bring the country together and heal us.

Certainly Republicans are just as likely to be self-deluded and believe nutty things. They are just as likely to be disappointed by the results of Election Day if things don't go well. I just don't believe I've seen Republicans riot recently.

Riots tend to occur in big cities or on college campuses, the stronghold of Democrats and liberals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #42


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord)
The reason that I think more Democrats are more likely to riot is that they are more likely to make decisions based upon emotions rather than facts.

Evidence?

QUOTE(Amlord)
Nobody is calling McCain "transformational" (what they heck does that mean?)

An agent of change, you know like McCain claims to be?

QUOTE(Amlord)
Nobody has false hopes (i.e. hopes not based on any facts) that McCain will bring the country together and heal us.

They have false fears that Obama will tear the country apart and harm us.

QUOTE(Amlord)
Certainly Republicans are just as likely to be self-deluded and believe nutty things. They are just as likely to be disappointed by the results of Election Day if things don't go well. I just don't believe I've seen Republicans riot recently.

Riots tend to occur in big cities or on college campuses, the stronghold of Democrats and liberals.

Reaching much?

Sure riots tend to happen in places with high population density, it takes a crowd. But linking this to political affiliation?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 03:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 31 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #43


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 11:14 AM) *
Lesly, since Italians are not voting in this U.S. election and are not citizens of the US, I think this example is hardly relevant. Just as white Italians are different than white Americans, black Nigerians would be a bit different than black Philadephians.

Let's stick to the topic.

Well I feel special for being singled out. Nobody sniffed at Moif's post and told him a Danish example of rioting was off limits. Maybe the problem is ad.gif Americans should stick to American examples of riots. I'll honor this unspoken cultural rule if you can argue group psychology can only explain mob behavior inside U.S. territories.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 31 2008, 03:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Oct 31 2008, 03:50 PM
Post #44


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 11:30 AM) *
Here's one list of 20th century riots:
Link

Again, most don't start as marches.


I am not sure your link stands for that proposition. Of course, how do we define a "march"? Are marches defined by taking out a permit on the Mall? I would suggest when groups of people aggregate for a purpose, and the purpose involves a public demonstration, that would be a "march"; and most U.S riots I am familiar with have had such an event as an integral component.

Whatever. Anyone trained in group psych knows such large groups are dangerous. There is really no cause to dispute this.

At any rate, we shall see.

As an aside, if you have graduated to that point through education, experience and age to acquire wisdom, then you may post opinion not supported by a study. I suppose it is your call whether you have so graduated. wink.gif




QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 31 2008, 11:38 AM) *
QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 11:14 AM) *
Lesly, since Italians are not voting in this U.S. election and are not citizens of the US, I think this example is hardly relevant. Just as white Italians are different than white Americans, black Nigerians would be a bit different than black Philadephians.

Let's stick to the topic.

Well I feel special for being singled out. Nobody sniffed at Moif's post and told him a Danish example of rioting was off limits. Maybe the problem is ad.gif Americans should stick to American examples of riots. I'll honor this unspoken cultural rule if you can argue group psychology can only explain mob behavior inside U.S. territories.


All I need to do is argue that this thread is about the likelyhood of race-based rioting in the U.S. after the U.S. presidential election. What may (has) happen (happened) in Italy, Denmark, Germany, Nigeria, Kenya, China, etc., is dicta....

You are beautiful when you are angry.... shifty.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zack
post Oct 31 2008, 03:52 PM
Post #45


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 570
Member No.: 8,030
Joined: October-11-07

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 09:42 AM) *
QUOTE(Zack)
I suggest you read this account in its entirety. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576...d_Colonies.html And, read Encarta's account of the Key Word Anthropology.

Encarta?

Zack, Encarta was a favorite reference of mine... when I was in fourth grade.

I assure you I am well-read on the history of colonialism both in the Americas and around the world.

I'm no historian, but as laymen go I'm alright. (Captain of the 2008 HCASC national championship team, thank-you-very-much)

QUOTE(Zack)
If you are honest with yourself you will admit that if someone doesn't act like the group they get treated differently.

A kernel of truth. Actually you should say:

Acts Different
Looks Different
Thinks different

Is related to or mistaken for anyone who does any one of the above...

All of those have been motives for the oppression of different group by heathens, like the lynch mobs and slave owners.

QUOTE(Zack)
When people act like heathens, absent of religious values, then they are treated as lesser value.

No they are often exalted. The KKK was popular in it's day. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond had successful runs for president.

Terrorists often had police support back in the hey-day of the Civil Rights Movement. Jefferson Davis became president of his own, admittedly doomed, nation.

All of these were well known heathens, absent of religious values.

QUOTE(Zack)
f you take time to read the Anthropology article you will find information of how people treat people of lesser gods. When a group moves from a god like norm to a heathen, out of control mob they instantly become of less value.

We don't debate religion here, so I will leave this theologically challenged assertion alone.

QUOTE(Zack)
Haitians believe in Voodoo and they are considered as near heathen by many other people of higher god assumptions.

.....

That's a mighty ignorant assertion.

It might even have fooled a dim-witted person who doesn't know any Haitian people.

QUOTE(Zack)
Hang a root over your door and invite a Haitian and have a good laugh when they don't enter your home

Hang a pentagram over your door and you'll find lots of Americans stop cold too. Heck, Sarah Palin is on video getting blessed against "all forms of witchcraft"

Haiti is a nation of a wide variety of religious beliefs, if you could stop stereotyping people you clearly know nothing about, it'd be great.
Your avatar doesn't do you justice considering Encarta was founded in 93.

My point is the folks place value on people according to attainment of religious evolution. If in early colonial period Indians or Africans were worshiping shamans or spirits it was easier to justify minimizing them. Actually capitalism minimized all people then and the actual measure of a person’s value was in their wealth. There were also many indentured white people, early America consisted of as much as 70% white being in bondage in repayment of travel costs to America. Capitalism also created slavery and the results of white people actions once it was abolished. As you point out the KKK and other negative anti religious themes of the past have all but been rooted out of our culture. I think this is due to what I said in the first place, that religion placed the value in the person and not the wealth.

I remain with the thought that white people do not think collectively as blacks and Koreans. I can understand why black people may feel and act differently than white people when something like Obama losing would occur. I think it is time for black people to leave the heathen behavior behind, throw off the Democratic crutch of unfortunate and just suck it up if their guy loses.

If blacks, as a group act like heathens following an Obama loss then it sets them back just like capitalism devalued people verses wealth, like the KKK religious group devalued the christian church just like Al Qaeda devalues Muslim beliefs. To act like heathens would be regressive!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 03:54 PM
Post #46


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick)
As an aside, if you have graduated to that point through education, experience and age to acquire wisdom, then you may post opinion not supported by a study. I suppose it is your call whether you have so graduated.

QUOTE(Plato)
When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

Anecdotal evidence is on a basic level inferior to scientific evidence.

I know that I don't know everything.

QUOTE(Zack)
Your avatar doesn't do you justice considering Encarta was founded in 93.

Lester Freamon, from The Wire, the best TV show ever made.

QUOTE(Zack)
My point is the folks place value on people according to attainment of religious evolution.

Define religious evolution.

QUOTE(Zack)
As you point out the KKK and other negative anti religious themes of the past have all but been rooted out of our culture.

If only that were true.
QUOTE(Zack)
I remain with the thought that white people do not think collectively as blacks and Koreans.

I know.

QUOTE(Zack)
I think it is time for black people to leave the heathen behavior behind, throw off the Democratic crutch of unfortunate and just suck it up if their guy loses.

I'll let them know at the next group meeting.

QUOTE(Zack)
If blacks, as a group act like heathens following an Obama loss then it sets them back just like capitalism devalued people verses wealth, like the KKK religious group devalued the christian church just like Al Qaeda devalues Muslim beliefs. To act like heathens would be regressive!

Black people hardly corner the market on "heathen" behavior.

Heathen behavior categorized much of this country's history.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 04:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 31 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #47


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 11:50 AM) *
All I need to do is argue that this thread is about the likelihood of race-based rioting in the U.S. after the U.S. presidential election. What may (has) happen (happened) in Italy, Denmark, Germany, Nigeria, Kenya, China, etc., is dicta....

I already answered the thread's first question. I don't feel I need to stick to U.S. examples to throw some light on human behavior. Besides, it wasn't all foreign. My post compared what happened in Italy to what happened in Philadelphia and why the former felt like a riot the latter felt like a celebration to a white observer. Phily is American enough for you, right?

QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 11:50 AM) *
You are beautiful when you are angry...

I was smirking. You can report me if you're certain I'm taking the thread off topic. happy.gif You talk too much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 04:19 PM
Post #48


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2008, 11:33 AM) *
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Oct 31 2008, 11:00 AM) *
Here's the thing, Amlord. I said this earlier in the thread:

QUOTE
If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races. He wouldn't be winning in the polls if he was only supported by blacks.


No one has yet to contradict my position that it's not just blacks who are passionate about Obama - because it can't be done. Logically, you see an Obama-Biden rally and there is a rainbow of faces. Look at the photo provided at the top of your own friggin link - could you ever mistake that for a Million Man march? So in keeping with another statement that I've made:


Luckily for me I never said that blacks would riot either way. I said Democrats will riot.


I believe you are being disingenuous. In response to the question: 1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot? You replied with this:

QUOTE
Which scenario does law enforcement feel they need to prepare for?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...S-election.html

QUOTE
US police fear riots could break out if John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, wins the election next month.

Either way, there might be riots...by Democrats.

I highly doubt McCain supporters are going to riot. They may start pulling thier capital out of the country, but not riot. You have to believe that McCain supporters know they are facing an uphill battle at this point. A loss will not be dramatic and thus no spark for a riot.


This debate is not focused on whether Democrats will riot if Obama loses versus Republicans will riot if McCain loses. That question has a decidedly different context - one that could lead to speculations about poll accuracy, voter fraud, etc. The debate questions specifically are referring to white people and black people, because that is the dichotomy that some people see it in terms of. "We have to fear rioting from blacks, but not whites." You even linked to an article that specifically referred to racial animosity and tension. Yet I'm supposed to believe that you earnestly are simply thinking in color-blind terms of "Democrats" and "Republicans?" Yeah, no racial context to that at all. Sure.

Why would you respond to a question asking about "blacks" and "whites" in terms of "Democrats" and "Republicans" if you didn't see some sort of correlation?

Responding to a question about expectations of different races. Linking to an article that refers to racial tension. And then you answer with a mindset that gives no consideration whatsoever to race, right?

Also, you can respond to my accusation of cherry picking the statements from police in your linked article at any time. Feel free to PM if you don't want to admit your bias publicly.

This post has been edited by SuzySteamboat: Oct 31 2008, 04:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zack
post Oct 31 2008, 04:52 PM
Post #49


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 570
Member No.: 8,030
Joined: October-11-07

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 11:54 AM) *
QUOTE(quick)
As an aside, if you have graduated to that point through education, experience and age to acquire wisdom, then you may post opinion not supported by a study. I suppose it is your call whether you have so graduated.

QUOTE(Plato)
When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

Anecdotal evidence is on a basic level inferior to scientific evidence.

I know that I don't know everything.

QUOTE(Zack)
Your avatar doesn't do you justice considering Encarta was founded in 93.

Lester Freamon, from The Wire, the best TV show ever made.

QUOTE(Zack)
My point is the folks place value on people according to attainment of religious evolution.

Define religious evolution.
As defined by Tylor in C 2 Anthropological Evolutionary Theories
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559...thropology.html

QUOTE(Zack)
As you point out the KKK and other negative anti religious themes of the past have all but been rooted out of our culture.

If only that were true.
QUOTE(Zack)
I remain with the thought that white people do not think collectively as blacks and Koreans.

I know.

QUOTE(Zack)
I think it is time for black people to leave the heathen behavior behind, throw off the Democratic crutch of unfortunate and just suck it up if their guy loses.

I'll let them know at the next group meeting.

QUOTE(Zack)
If blacks, as a group act like heathens following an Obama loss then it sets them back just like capitalism devalued people verses wealth, like the KKK religious group devalued the christian church just like Al Qaeda devalues Muslim beliefs. To act like heathens would be regressive!

QUOTE
Black people hardly corner the market on "heathen" behavior.
I agree, and I remain on the point that the best path to peace is the sharing god path. I'm not religious, I'm just saying you can't legislate or litigate love and understanding.

QUOTE
Heathen behavior categorized much of this country's history.
Very true, the KKK was founded by Democrats, the most godless in our presidency were Jefferson-Jackson, the heros of the Democratic Party. Blacks fought with the King, blacks fought with the North so you can see how some people held some personal reasons outside of race. Slave owners were a minority of the white population in the south and I'd say most southern white non slave owners were fighting for the rights of slave owners, another debate.

Check out the Great Awakening, the birth of freedom of the slaves, it was a great religious movement that replaced the value of wealth with the value of people. That's something Jefferson and Jackson were clueless on.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 05:00 PM
Post #50


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Zack)
As defined by Tylor

That explains a lot, you're basing your perspective on religious evolution on the writing of 19th century theorist.

There is an irony here, see if you can spot it.

QUOTE(Zack)
Very true, the KKK was founded by Democrats, the most godless in our presidency were Jefferson-Jackson, the heros of the Democratic Party. Blacks fought with the King, blacks fought with the North so you can see how some people held some personal reasons outside of race. Slave owners were a minority of the white population in the south and I'd say most southern white non slave owners were fighting for the rights of slave owners, another debate.

Check out the Great Awakening, the birth of freedom of the slaves, it was a great religious movement that replaced the value of wealth with the value of people. That's something Jefferson and Jackson were clueless on.

I'm also aware of the history of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Racism was a constant in every president until perhaps Kennedy. Lincoln was an outspoken racist.

Racism crossed all political bounds in the US, still does.

Though it is more common among conservatives.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 05:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 31 2008, 05:03 PM
Post #51


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 04:50 PM) *
All I need to do is argue that this thread is about the likelyhood of race-based rioting in the U.S. after the U.S. presidential election. What may (has) happen (happened) in Italy, Denmark, Germany, Nigeria, Kenya, China, etc., is dicta....

You are beautiful when you are angry.... shifty.gif
In point of fact the thread asks if white people will riot, not white Americans.

Americans are subject to the same basic emotions as all other human beings. Being white, or American doesn't mean that people won't riot. Its not that long ago since predominantly white Americans were rioting at the WTO summit in Seattle.

That said, I doubt white Americans will be rioting because Barack Obama gets elected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Oct 31 2008, 06:44 PM
Post #52


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



I keep wondering about people that interview these white trash rednecks and expect them to say something intelligent. Nobody will riot, one way or the other, end of story, next case. If Americans of ANY color were proactive enough to unglue their behinds from the couch and riot, A.) We might not be in the toilet we are in right now, and B:) it probably would have happened when the price of getting to work started exceeding the actual paycheck. Presidential election? Please. It's just a meaningless popularity contest. the top 1% stay in control one way or the other. So what's the point? Especially when there's the TV to tell us to behave ourselves. The media is the government's flashbang. Until AT LEAST that much changes, the chances of this are as high as the chance of the interviewee deciding not to sleep with his sister any longer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kmsouthern
post Oct 31 2008, 07:07 PM
Post #53


******
Nerd Goddess Extraordinaire

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 321
Member No.: 885
Joined: July-15-03

From: somewhere in the Sonoran desert...
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



In college, I took a very interesting sociology course - the entire syllabus was devoted to civil unrest (the course is no longer available...the young professor succumbed to his battle with cancer several years ago...he was pretty amazing). There are a number of theories about rioting and civil unrest (collective behavior) and also a number of contributing factors that are defined and noted. I find it alarming that rioting is so often seen as a "black thing" (or brown)...white folks demonstrate, black folks riot. We all remember the characterizations during Katrina of the whites who were trying to gather necessary supplies (by stealing them) and the blacks who were 'looting'

With respect to this election, I think it's silly to think that there would be many McCain voters, of any race, who would riot. He's not up in the polls, so there's little to no expectation of victory. He doesn't belong to a group whose entire (almost) history in this country has dealt with institutionalized mistreatment by the government/law. There would be little to no reason for McCain supporters to riot. There would be a LOT of reasons for Obama supporters to riot, and it has nothing to do with the race of the potential rioters. There might be some extremists (white supremacists, people who think Obama is a closet Muslim who wants to destroy America) who are up in arms and who take some sort of action, but it will not be "white people" - rather crazy people - who are acting out. ermm.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Oct 31 2008, 07:31 PM
Post #54


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Looms @ Oct 31 2008, 02:44 PM) *
I keep wondering about people that interview these white trash rednecks and expect them to say something intelligent. Nobody will riot, one way or the other, end of story, next case. If Americans of ANY color were proactive enough to unglue their behinds from the couch and riot, A.) We might not be in the toilet we are in right now, and B:) it probably would have happened when the price of getting to work started exceeding the actual paycheck. Presidential election? Please. It's just a meaningless popularity contest. the top 1% stay in control one way or the other. So what's the point? Especially when there's the TV to tell us to behave ourselves. The media is the government's flashbang. Until AT LEAST that much changes, the chances of this are as high as the chance of the interviewee deciding not to sleep with his sister any longer.


I think there is more probability that if anyone "riots" as a result of the election results it would be liberals, not necessarily blacks but liberals of all colors if McCain pulls it out.. Reason, the media has been engaging in a herculean effort to convince everyone it is over already. My opinion, in an effort to stifle conservative votes. Also there is the pent up rage over
George Bush and the Bush victory in 2000 and 2004. They darn near went off then.

I do think that if Obama wins, there will be instances of violence but not a full scale riot. There are great deal of people that fear this man. Honestly fear what he want ot do. To many, there is something very unsettling about his quick rise in statue even within the Democrat party and his very slight experience and the crush of celebrity, media and the like that seem to be shoving him down our throats even as they admit, like Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose did recently that they really do not know him or what his global perspective or influences are. Anytime you are getting such a hard sell, whether at the used car lot or the voting booth many tend to “smell the rat”.

I do not believe that whites will go after blacks; I think most whites understand that Obama will get nearly all of the black vote. I think most whites understand completely that blacks would like to see a president that looks like them. It is completely natural to feel that way. I think if you see a overtly negative reaction from whites as a result of an Obama win it will be against white liberals because that is who they will blame. The black population can not elect Obama, If he wins, good or bad, it will be because of white support.

Just a note:
Please remember that for the last two presidential elections the polls were wrong up until Election Day. I would also suggest that we keep in mind that here in Virginia; Doug Wilder (nations first elected black governor, was up by about 10 points the morning of the election. He won, but by razor slim margin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 08:23 PM
Post #55


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Royucker @ Oct 31 2008, 03:31 PM) *
Just a note:
Please remember that for the last two presidential elections the polls were wrong up until Election Day. I would also suggest that we keep in mind that here in Virginia; Doug Wilder (nations first elected black governor, was up by about 10 points the morning of the election. He won, but by razor slim margin.


The 2000 polls were accurate. The Electoral College (with some aid from the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris) was what provided the "inaccurate" result. For both the 2000 and 2004 polls, I honestly believe that disenfranchisement played a key role in discrepency. Not saying it threw the elections one way or another, but I do think there was a significant impact. What good is polling a certain % who say they're going to vote one way or another, and when that percent goes to actually cast a ballot, there are "issues" that result in the voter either not being able to vote in the first place (i.e. "sorry, your name is too similar to a felon and we purged you from the roster") or your vote being discarded after you cast it (i.e. "hanging chads")?

This post has been edited by SuzySteamboat: Oct 31 2008, 08:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 31 2008, 08:30 PM
Post #56


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Royucker @ Oct 31 2008, 03:31 PM) *
Please remember that for the last two presidential elections the polls were wrong up until election day.

The only polling organization I pay serious attention to is Gallup, and I remember a week before the election they predicted Bush would win by two percentage points. He did. It was a tight race and I thought most pollsters did well. They didn't make any defiant predictions about a Kerry win. In the 2000 election Bush was ahead of Gore for months. Your perception isn't accurate.

QUOTE(Royucker @ Oct 31 2008, 03:31 PM) *
To many, there is something very unsettling about his quick rise in statue even within the Democrat party and his very slight experience and the crush of celebrity, media and the like that seem to be shoving him down our throats even as they admit, like Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose did recently that they really do not know him or what his global perspective or influences are.

Welcome to 2004. Enjoy the party. If you want to blame anyone, though, you should blame the people responsible for your gag reflex: voters. Good luck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 31 2008, 08:46 PM
Post #57


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Oct 31 2008, 03:23 PM) *
QUOTE(Royucker @ Oct 31 2008, 03:31 PM) *
Just a note:
Please remember that for the last two presidential elections the polls were wrong up until Election Day. I would also suggest that we keep in mind that here in Virginia; Doug Wilder (nations first elected black governor, was up by about 10 points the morning of the election. He won, but by razor slim margin.


The 2000 polls were accurate. The Electoral College (with some aid from the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris) was what provided the "inaccurate" result. For both the 2000 and 2004 polls, I honestly believe that disenfranchisement played a key role in discrepency. Not saying it threw the elections one way or another, but I do think there was a significant impact. What good is polling a certain % who say they're going to vote one way or another, and when that percent goes to actually cast a ballot, there are "issues" that result in the voter either not being able to vote in the first place (i.e. "sorry, your name is too similar to a felon and we purged you from the roster") or your vote being discarded after you cast it (i.e. "hanging chads")?



LOL, ya right. The funny thing is that the libs were trying to steal the Presidency. 2000 election

This post has been edited by trumpetplayer: Oct 31 2008, 08:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 08:55 PM
Post #58


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 04:46 PM) *
LOL, ya right. The funny thing is that the libs were trying to steal the Presidency. 2000 election


Drive-by knee jerk dismissal of opinion? Check.

Projection? Check.

Link to extraordinarily biased source? Check.

Please give me a reason why I should take your post seriously. You probably think Ashley Todd is a Democratic plant. While you're at it, you can also explain how denying someone the right to vote for a clerical oversight and discarding filled out ballots due to chads is not disenfranchisement in the strictest sense of the term.

This post has been edited by SuzySteamboat: Oct 31 2008, 08:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Oct 31 2008, 09:39 PM
Post #59


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:40 PM) *
Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.

Has it occurred to you that white people are more likely to get what they want? Like, you know, equal justice and stuff? rolleyes.gif Maybe you should look into a few "simple facts" about American law enforcement and jurisprudence.

One simple fact that seems to have eluded you is that "last 40 years" include a considerable amount of rioting arising from Vietnam protests (many of which were a variant on latter-day draft riots), led by students and veterans of all colors - though predominantly white. I know this because I was there. Indeed, I was myself arrested for "inciting to riot" at a demonstration organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War - within the past forty years. And I'm predominantly white.

More simple facts from the "last 40 years": the 1968 Democratic National Convention riots were led by predominantly white Yippies, the 1968 Stonewall riots involved, if memory serves, far more transvestites than blacks, the White Night riots following the assassinations of George Moscone and Harvey Milk were, again, predominantly white, the Greensboro massacre was instigated by Klansmen and the American Nazi Party who are - duh - white guys, the Pioneer Days riot at Chico State in 1987 was predominantly white, the Tompkins Square Park Riot was instigated by multi-racial police, but was dominated by white skinheads and punks, the Woodstock 1999 riot was predominantly white, the WTO riots in Seattle were predominantly white, the protests surrounding the 2000 Democratic National Convention were led by the predominantly white North American Anarchist Conference with spill-over from Indymedia's predominantly white "Shadow Convention" and the predominantly white Rage Against the Machine concert), and the neo-nazi riots in Toledo in 2005 were - any guesses? - entirely white. I exclude all of the riots that have erupted as a result of football, baseball, basketball, and hockey games - that's just fans letting off steam, right? And we all know there are no Caucasian sports fans. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:40 PM) *
Its a simple fact of human existence that recent actions of people are a better indicator of future actions than are actions in the more distant past.

So many simple facts, so few simple sources. So, forty years is a long enough period for the anthropological evolution of white society to entirely dismiss violent demonstrations as a course of action. Huh. I guess we can't go by the public record on that one. But I'm at least glad that we whites have moved beyond the impulse to lynch - to shout "Kill him!" at political rallies and so on. That sort of thing is limited to Republicans - and it's just coincidental that those guys are predominantly white.

You know, I suspect that consuming too many of these "simple facts" simply makes one a simpleton...

QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2008, 10:16 AM) *
Which scenario does law enforcement feel they need to prepare for?

I would argue that that tells us a lot more about law enforcement than it does about the population at large. We know who the police will be targeting, regardless of who wins or who might instigate violence - the same people that law enforcement always targets: the black community.

QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 10:52 AM) *
Democrats tried to steal 2000 and 2004.

Damn, dude - you really don't know anything about recent American history, do you? Heck, you could be the next Republican vice presidential nominee!

QUOTE(quick @ Oct 31 2008, 10:56 AM) *
A few skinhead types may riot on the white side, but the numbers would be so low as to be negligable.

You mean skinhead types like Joe the Plumber? I've seen hundreds if not thousands of white Republicans identifying with that skinhead at every Palin rally.

QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2008, 11:33 AM) *
Nobody has false hopes (i.e. hopes not based on any facts) that McCain will bring the country together and heal us.

Yeah, but that's not because McCain isn't saying it - just that no one believes him. laugh.gif

QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2008, 11:33 AM) *
Riots tend to occur in big cities or on college campuses, the stronghold of Democrats and liberals.

And the strongholds of large populations and those more likely to be informed about history, government, and rights. But I agree overall. I think whites are probably less likely to riot should McCain lose, but way more likely to commit random acts of violence against African-Americans - or maybe even against "... Democrats". ermm.gif


This post has been edited by Wertz: Oct 31 2008, 09:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #60


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Royucker)
I think there is more probability that if anyone "riots" as a result of the election results it would be liberals, not necessarily blacks but liberals of all colors if McCain pulls it out.. Reason, the media has been engaging in a herculean effort to convince everyone it is over already. My opinion, in an effort to stifle conservative votes.

Actually most of the media has been actively avoiding that.

They've just been reporting the polls, all of which have Obama winning.

QUOTE(Royucker)
There are great deal of people that fear this man. Honestly fear what he want ot do. To many, there is something very unsettling about his quick rise in statue even within the Democrat party and his very slight experience and the crush of celebrity, media and the like that seem to be shoving him down our throats even as they admit, like Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose did recently that they really do not know him or what his global perspective or influences are. Anytime you are getting such a hard sell, whether at the used car lot or the voting booth many tend to “smell the rat”.

We actually know an awful lot about Barack Obama.

We have two best selling books on his life and perspective.

Loads of detailed policy proposals.

A record in public service that stretches back to his graduation from law school.

His voting records.

His public statements.

We know more about Obama's life then we do about Hillary Clinton's.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 11:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 19th, 2018 - 09:25 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.