Question I don't dare post in GD Primary: Isn't it equally bigoted to vote

[saracat]

against John because he is the "white male" candidate as it is to vote against Barack because he is black or Hillary because she is a woman? I would like to post this to a wider audience but am a little apprehensive.I am sure I would be called "racist' but it seems to me the door swings both ways!

[knight_of_the_star]

1. I'm totally with you on that

As far as I'm concerned racism is racism doesn't matter if its a white guy hating black folks or a black guy hating white folks. Only difference is which one gets more flak when both should get both barrels fully in my opinion. I don't think people should be picking a candidate by the color of their skin or their sex but by their personal merit, integrity, and policies. I bet if what you want to say was posted it would make a flamewar a mile long, but hey it couldn't hurt. Its not like they don't dredge the septic tank in there anyway every hour on the hour.

[AndyA]

2. Yes, I've had several people make this observation to me as well.

What's the difference between voting FOR a candidate because they're black or female and voting AGAINST them for the same reason?

We need the best person for the job, regardless of gender, color, or anything else. We've had a President for over 7 years who has lied to us repeatedly. And there's likely a lot we don't know about.

We need someone strong who can fix these problems. I see Edwards as the only logical choice.

[Horse with no Name]

12. I've tried to make that point until I am blue in the face

people don't understand that there are two sides of racism/sexism and they are both equally as ugly.

[lisainmilo]

3. I have noticed it....but I understand your hesitation

I especially sensed it on the last debate.

[Lugnut]

4. I don't see any difference.

Neither gender nor race is a criterion I use to make a choice But I'm sure somebody would throw it back in your face. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on out there in the slugfest.

[Catchawave]

5. I've noticed that too.

A lot of newbies posting negative stuff about all the candidates. This is when it's good to keep an eye on post counts and join dates :evilgrin:

Then hit ignore !

[Lugnut]

8. Exactly.

There are a few agendas flying around out there.

[iris5426]

9. As a newbie I have to say it makes me a little sad that what I say is taken with a grain of salt

from all the people that have been here for a while though...not my fault I didn't find this place until recently!!

P.S. I totally agree with the OP

[saracat]

10. Don't worry.It is obvious who the "newbies " with bad intentions are, and you aren't one!

:hug: :hug: Besides, I get accused of being a "troll" on a regular basis.And I have been here a long time! It is usually those supporters of different candidates who think anyone who disagrees with them is a "troll" or "freeper' because of course only they can have an opinion! Snark!

[iris5426]

11. Thanks that makes me feel better :-) nt

[Two Americas]

14. don't worry

Don't worry a bit, I am a newbie too, just more verbose than others. :)

[Plucketeer]

15. I'm still fairly new here as far as posting goes.....

..........but I've BEEN a regular on this forum for some years now. I actually was using a different name earlier and somehow that account got loused up to where I couldn't use it. I resigned myself to just reading for quite some time.

ANYWAYs.......... The wife and me were talking along these lines last night. What we don't understand is the persistent use of the identifier: African-American. WHY - when we're trying our best to meld into one populace - do our negro citizens insist on defining themselves as something apart from just plain American? Would there be any advantage for women to call themselves "Female-Americans"???
I happen to have some Bulgarian lineage to my being. And it has yet to be a century since that lineage landed on US soil. Thing is, I don't go around calling myself a Bulgarian-American. Am I missing out??? Or is it that my pale skin automatically defaults me to the American-American catagory? I'm confused! :crazy:

[DavidDvorkin]

6. I agree completely

And I understand your hestitation.

[smokey nj]

7. I agree with you saracat and I think you're wise to keep this out of GDP, it's like

watching monkeys throw feces around in there. :scared:

[Two Americas]

13. progress

People see it as progress to have a Black person or a woman become president. Questions people are not asking - would it be a sign of progress or a cause of progress? If it is a sign of progress, is it a false sign of progress? Progress for whom? Who still gets left behind? After all, if a Black person can be elected president, then we can congratulate ourselves on how much progress "we" have made, and will that tend to make people more or less aware of the plight of the millions of Black people still left behind and mired in poverty? Which women will be making progress? The fortunate few who made all of the right choices, who had all of the advantages, as Senator Clinton has had? Doesn't that reinforce the ideas that therefore those who are still struggling have only themselves to blame for making the wrong choices, and that we should ignore the effect of relative advantage or disadvantage into which people are born?

Clinton rallies suggest to me a mutual admiration society of the beautiful "you go girl" strivers and upwardly mobile. Obama rallies strike me in a similar way, with the theme of "look how progressive we are to be pretending that race doesn't exist and look how much hope we have that things could all be completely different in some magical and mysterious way!"

Some big practical political problems that no one addresses are that both candidates are forced to run to the right to reassure white male voters in order to win, and that neither candidate is likely to be elected in the general, and that even if they are it will be almost impossible for them to have any sort of mandate or to resist or oppose the right wing effectively.

But since the campaigns are being framed as referendums on race or gender respectively, any and all criticism of the candidacies can be dismissed as sexist or racist. In that way, they serve to cripple and impair our ability to understand and discuss racism and sexism, and that is not the least bit progressive.

That means that we have everything to lose and very little to gain in either candidacy.