The Unintended Consequences of Minority Turnout (US)

[iNow]

Oh, for the love of Zeus. Jackson, I'm just ignoring you, as you don't seem to care what a thread topic is.

 

This thread.

 

"It looks like a higher black voter turn-out may have helped Prop 8 pass."

"That's interesting. It's strange that they, having been oppressed themselves, would support a measure seeking to restrict rights from others."

"It's probably more to do with religious influence."

"Actually, it wasn't about blacks at all, it seems it as an age issue, where older people were responsible for it passing."

"No, no, no. You're all wrong. The freakin' mormons contributed a mini-Fort Knox, and teamed up with the Catholics to stir up a frenzy. They contributed more to the passage of prop 8 than anyone else."

 

 

<thread sits dormant for a while, until iNow shares a funny video called "Prop 8 - The Musical" put together by Jack Black>

 

Then, a complete nonsequitur.

 

Jackson - "I don't think Obama would have won if he were white. He clearly played the race card."

 

Let the tangent ensue where we battle on an opinion that is not only irrelevant to the thread, but irrelevant in general. Are you there, Zeus?

[ParanoiA]

To vote or base a vote on change (Obama), then voting for 'status quo' (referendums)seems to make no sense...or at best showing a very weak case FOR Obama.

 

Not really though, that's a party partition right there. Same sex and abortion issues represent the social policy. The "change" theme however, to the black community, was about monetary policy, in addition to foreign policy - the whole class warfare thing, I believe. I don't think that demographic cared much about social advancement for homosexual unions and subjects that impact their religion, like abortion.

 

So it is consistent for black folk to vote FOR Obama's change while voting against these referendums.

 

I am curious on what change you personally are expecting, or for that matter anyone idea of expectations from an Obama administration? If he continues to follow Clinton's policy, with my blessing certainly seems to be, he will lose his base.

 

No he won't. Because they liked Clinton's policies - Billy's that is. I wish they didn't, but I think they do.

[Pangloss]

I think it's a mistake to focus on the concept of the American voter being hoodwinked, or buying a sale of mislabeled goods. That approach is not going to help you defeat Democrats in 2010, because it completely misunderstands the fact that the American people could care less about Democrats and Republicans right now.

 

Sure, Obama met the acceptability criteria, yadda yadda yadda. You can focus for the next several years on figuring out how to sell conservativism by finding a candidate that magically meets the acceptability criteria, or you can listen to what the American people are actually saying (which is "STOP DOING THAT!!!!!"). Choose wisely.

[jackson33]

Not really though, that's a party partition right there. Same sex and abortion issues represent the social policy. The "change" theme however, to the black community, was about monetary policy, in addition to foreign policy - the whole class warfare thing, I believe. I don't think that demographic cared much about social advancement for homosexual unions and subjects that impact their religion, like abortion.

 

So it is consistent for black folk to vote FOR Obama's change while voting against these referendums.

 

No he won't. Because they liked Clinton's policies - Billy's that is. I wish they didn't, but I think they do.

 

 

Possibly because Ms. Clinton was his only major competition, Obama ran against the Clinton policy, usually saying past 20-30 years to whatever referenced. As for the Clinton influence, I'll take another path, suggesting his handlers or advisor's are making the picks. Their already in 2012 campaign mode, but will admit the move is somewhat settling, at least to me.

 

I'll disagree and suggest the hardcore left, those wanting out of Iraq yesterday, wanting social changes or the as in Capitalism (taxing Big Oil or the rich, Unionizing or some environmental cause) would or should be consistent with individual rights. Even today, Obama is professing a passionate approach to interpretation of the Law/Constitution over that of pure legality.

[iNow]

Even today, Obama is professing a passionate approach to interpretation of the Law/Constitution over that of pure legality.

 

Like where, specifically, do you suggest this is occuring?

[jackson33]

Like where, specifically, do you suggest this is occuring?

 

iNow; The purpose of law, is to judge on the 'cold hard facts' of the case or in the case of an issue before the SC, the issue as it pertains to US Laws and the Constitution.

 

There are quite a few references available, where Obama would like to take the SC, by appointments and the use of the US Judicial System to alter these purposes to the emotional or if you prefer the circumstances a perpetrator commits crime, rather than the fact the crime was committed.

This is called 'Extenuating Circumstances' and are already considered, but in sentencing.

 

Google;

Obama+SC+Nominees

Obama+SC+Visions, or if you have an advanced search engine you can get his arguments while an attorney for ACORN.

 

At the 'Althouse' site; To planned parenthood Obama said..."We need somebody who's got heart, the empathy to recognize what its like to be a teen age mother".

 

This is particularly scary to me, for SC Justices to come from those with personal backgrounds where any influence in decision, could be based on any event in their life, RICH OR POOR. He as a graduate in Constitutional Law, should know better than the average person, this was neither the intent of the founders, or the true purpose of law...

[Mr Skeptic]

jackson33, could I see the context of that quote, please?

[iNow]

Yeah, like a specific link and quote as I requested prior to that response...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Prop 8 - The Musical

 

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

 

What's next?... Indeed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfVzFBTk1eQ

Edited December 8, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged