If Republicans aren't racist, why did they nominate Paladino in New York?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Perhaps some didn't get the memo. Or, they define racism differently.

Back to the platform they agree with. And/or individual voters saw nothing to take exception with.

So we have "not getting the memo", "differing definitions of racism" (note: "Run ****** Run" is not considered racist by Tea Partiers), and "but we like his platform" are all exceptions to the "no toleration of racism" policy the Tea Party claims to have.

Gee, with all these loopholes it makes it rather difficult for the Tea Party to claim any kind of moral high ground when defending themselves against charges of racism, doesn't it?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But there's a huge distinction you're missing. You're conflating the sin of omission (which is failing to repudiate someone you know) with the sin of commission (actively forwarding racist emails to others). That isn't about Paladino's associations, it's about his actions.

In this case, the voters had a clear choice between Lazio and a racist and they chose the racist. And now, they have a clear choice between Cuomo and the racist and they're still choosing the racist.

Well, if they choose Cuomo, aren't they still picking the racist?

Quote:

"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by DJW

"Don't move or the ****** gets it". No, Mel Brooks is not a racist.

A line spoken by a black actor in a movie the primary theme of which was to mock racism.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, if they choose Cuomo, aren't they still picking the racist?

That's a bit of a reach.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Perhaps some didn't get the memo. Or, they define racism differently.

How do you define racism?

[The Charnel Expanse]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But there's a huge distinction you're missing. You're conflating the sin of omission (which is failing to repudiate someone you know) with the sin of commission (actively forwarding racist emails to others). That isn't about Paladino's associations, it's about his actions.

Again, I'm talking about the people who voted for Paladino, not Paladino himself. He is clearly either a racist or has racist proclivities. Not to mention a pervert. Completely unfit for high office.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, if they choose Cuomo, aren't they still picking the racist?

Really? "Shuck and jive" is the same as "run, ******, run"?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse

Again, I'm talking about the people who voted for Paladino, not Paladino himself. He is clearly either a racist or has racist proclivities. Not to mention a pervert. Completely unfit for high office.

I agree with your point about guilt by association. I don't necessarily think everybody who voted for this guy is racist.

However, as I mentioned earlier, he was a Tea Party candidate. And we've been told repeatedly by the Tea Party that they will not tolerate racism. In light of the fact that they overwhelming support Paladino, it makes it hard to take them seriously on that point.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Really? "Shuck and jive" is the same as "run, ******, run"?

You read my mind. I'll answer your rhetorical question: not even close!

However, I wouldn't want to debate the proposition that Cuomo is not racist. The point is that Paladino is undeniably an overt racist.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

... with all these loopholes it makes it rather difficult for the Tea Party to claim any kind of moral high ground when defending themselves against charges of racism, doesn't it?

IMO, they are fools to make the effort of defending themselves against nonsense platitudes proposed by holier-than-thou know-it-alls.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by AlBell

IMO, they are fools to make the effort of defending themselves against nonsense platitudes proposed by holier-than-thou know-it-alls.

So they should just revel in their racist elements instead making efforts to distance themselves from them?

[leftysergeant]

We can say with certainty that Paladino is a sleazy racist with bloody poor judgement. If you have political ambitions, it is dumber than a balsa wood sledge hammer to send out racist and perverted e-mails under an e-mail address that can be traced back to yourself. He lacks the brains and maturity, and quite possibly the integrity, to hold an office.

The teabaggers, by not publicly admitting that they backed a moron, get his cooties nation-wide.

I have yet to see the sleazebag do or say anything that would redeem him in my eyes.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Maybe voters agree with his platform.

http://paladinoforthepeople.com/about.php

I'm sure there are enough dimbulbs who think that his super-majority-for=tax-bills has been a rousing success where it has been enacted.

(Chime in here if you are from a state that has done this to themselves.)

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, if they choose Cuomo, aren't they still picking the racist?

There is a BIG difference between the N Word and "Shuck and Jive", an colloquialim which is used all the time by people of all races with no eyebrows raised...........

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by AlBell

IMO, they are fools to make the effort of defending themselves against nonsense platitudes proposed by holier-than-thou know-it-alls.

Even the Tea Party realises that "Racist" is not a good thing to be labelled with in politics, but not Al Bell.......

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also see a big difference between "perversion" and "racism". Racism has a history of informing political views. Perversion has a history of being clandestine, hidden and wholly separate from (often completely at odds with) a politician's position on various issues.

That's the difference between assuming someone is a pervert by voting for a pervert (though they must at least condone and tolerate it) and deducing that they're racist by voting for an overtly racist candidate.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

You mean they failed to know the first thing about the guy they voted for? With Republicans that's often a safe bet, but is woeful ignorance really a defense for voting in a racist?

I don't think so, do you?

Is woeful ignorance a defense for voting for Alvin Greene and Kesha Rogers?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So you're argument is that the Republicans who voted for Paladino weren't necessarily racist, just stupid?

I'm saying casting all Republicans as racist that voted for Paladino is an unsupported claim. Are you arguing that all of them knew of his emails and considered him racist and voted for him despite or because of it?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Neally

I'm saying casting all Republicans as racist that voted for Paladino is an unsupported claim. Are you arguing that all of them knew of his emails and considered him racist and voted for him despite or because of it?

I'm claiming that the Tea Party has positioned itself as having a "no toleration" policy for racism, and yet they've elected a man who has engaged in clearly racist behavior as their candidate for governor of New York.

Do you see the disconnect?

And you seem to be offering ignorance as the only defense. An ignorance, by the way, that would have to be staggeringly willful as even the most cursory search into Paladino's background reveals his racist behavior. It's not like it's ancient history, after all.

So we're left with two options:

1) The people who voted for Paladino don't care that he engaged in racist behavior, thus rendering the Tea Party's claim of a "no toleration" policy for racism nothing but empty rhetoric.

2) The people who voted for Paladino weren't aware of his racist behavior, thus establishing the Tea Party doesn't vet its candidates and will blindly vote for whoever waves their banner.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So we're left with two options:

1) The people who voted for Paladino don't care that he engaged in racist behavior, thus rendering the Tea Party's claim of a "no toleration" policy for racism nothing but empty rhetoric.

2) The people who voted for Paladino weren't aware of his racist behavior, thus establishing the Tea Party doesn't vet its candidates and will blindly vote for whoever waves their banner.

Wow. You really nailed 'em.

Who do you think might actually care? Do you think you will persuade even one person to who went for Paladino to vote Democrat with your news flash? Or any Tea Party member or sympathizer elsewhere?

Answers: I don't, No, and No. Now what?

[Neally]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So we're left with two options:

1) The people who voted for Paladino don't care that he engaged in racist behavior, thus rendering the Tea Party's claim of a "no toleration" policy for racism nothing but empty rhetoric.

2) The people who voted for Paladino weren't aware of his racist behavior, thus establishing the Tea Party doesn't vet its candidates and will blindly vote for whoever waves their banner.

My guess is that it's probably mostly #2. Similar to democrats blindly voting for an Alvin Greene or Kesha Rogers. Not really news that a lot of people blindly vote via political affiliation rather than objectively and thoroughly researching the individual candidates.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Neally

Is woeful ignorance a defense for voting for Alvin Greene and Kesha Rogers?

No, and I'm glad you brought up Greene because he's the perfect analogy. During the primary, it could be argued that no one knew who he was and didn't know that he was in trouble for sexual misconduct.

Now that this is common knowledge, anyone voting for him is giving their implicit approval of this. There is no excuse for voting for the guy now. He should be disqualified in the minds of voters.

Why doesn't this also apply to that racist in New York?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Who do you think might actually care? Do you think you will persuade even one person to who went for Paladino to vote Democrat with your news flash? Or any Tea Party member or sympathizer elsewhere?

Why do you keep jumping to whether or not it is useful to identify Paladino as a racist, or his Tea Party supporters as tolerating racism?

First things first: it is true that Paladino is a racist, and that his Tea Party supporters tolerate racism. Do you agree?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Neally

My guess is that it's probably mostly #2. Similar to democrats blindly voting for an Alvin Greene or Kesha Rogers. Not really news that a lot of people blindly vote via political affiliation rather than objectively and thoroughly researching the individual candidates.

Alvin Greene's obscenity charges came out after the primary. There's no reason to think voters had any way to know about his inappropriate actions before they voted.

And from what I can tell, Kesha Rogers is only guilty of having some controversial political positions. Positions which she ran on and must therefore be reflective of her constituency.

Neither case is comparable to a political organization espousing a "no tolerance" policy for racism, then electing a candidate who was caught being racist in a widely publicized incident mere months before the election.

And supposing there was wide-spread ignorance among the voters, why didn't the Tea Party leadership disavow this guy back in April in compliance with their "no tolerance" policy?

[AlBell]

mumblethrax:

I agree that a number of you share the thread prize for a Pyrrhic Victory courtesy of extended mutual mental masturbation.

Luckily for actual voters like me, if you use similar critical thinking skills to dissect every politician and party you'll never find anyone worthy of your vote.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Luckily for actual voters like me, if you use similar critical thinking skills to dissect every politician and party you'll never find anyone worthy of your vote.

How about if we at least don't vote for the candidates who are racist and homophobic? Or is that too fine a line for you?

[Neally]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

No, and I'm glad you brought up Greene because he's the perfect analogy. During the primary, it could be argued that no one knew who he was and didn't know that he was in trouble for sexual misconduct.

His sexual misconduct is beside the point. The point being that a no name with no qualifications was elected with no rational basis. Voters selected him based on race, the sound of his name, order on the ballot, or who knows what. Voters do that sometimes, yes even as shocking as it seems, Democrats. Likewise Paladino could have won not because of voters wanting a racist in office, but out of sheer laziness in checking him out. Thus, to the question in the title of this thread, is an answer and the claim that all Republicans that voted for him are racist is unsupported.

[eeyore1954]

Clearly it is because republicans are racist. But since republicans are racist it didn't matter who they voted for because all the candidates are racist republicans.

[eeyore1954]

On a more serious note first I would assume most people who voted did not know. I live in NY and I didn't know about it until after he won and saw an old resurrected thread on JREF.

A person who might be a racist is running for an office still might get my vote if his platform agreed with my beliefs and his opponent does not. I would consider how important this racism was to his performance of his job, how important the items in his platform were to me, etc.

Kind of like the thread about the Texas politician who handed out scholarships to relatives.

So I am not a racist but I might still vote for one.
Are the people who kept elected Ted Kennedy in favor of drunk driving. Or what about
Harry Reids racist comments does that mean people should not vote for him or if they do they are racist.
In this case I am very disturbed by the run ****** run poster and also by the forwarding of pornography. And wonder how trustworthy someone who would be irresponsible and callous enough to forward them would be.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Neally

His sexual misconduct is beside the point. The point being that a no name with no qualifications was elected with no rational basis. Voters selected him based on race, the sound of his name, order on the ballot, or who knows what. Voters do that sometimes, yes even as shocking as it seems, Democrats. Likewise Paladino could have won not because of voters wanting a racist in office, but out of sheer laziness in checking him out. Thus, to the question in the title of this thread, is an answer and the claim that all Republicans that voted for him are racist is unsupported.

You missed the point. The point is that one could have argued this before Greene was a known quantity. Now he is and no one should vote for him. Likewise, Paladino is now known too. He's a known racist. Yet republicans are still supporting him, even though his racism is there for anyone to see. I'm not sure how anyone can defend this, least of all on grounds of ignorance. That train left the station.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

You missed the point. The point is that one could have argued this before Greene was a known quantity. Now he is and no one should vote for him. Likewise, Paladino is now known too. He's a known racist. Yet republicans are still supporting him, even though his racism is there for anyone to see. I'm not sure how anyone can defend this, least of all on grounds of ignorance. That train left the station.

Also, this:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And supposing there was wide-spread ignorance among the voters, why didn't the Tea Party leadership disavow this guy back in April in compliance with their "no tolerance" policy?

[GreyArea]

I don't think that all New York Republicans are racists, whether you use the harder of softer definition.

In fact, looking at the numbers, only about 10% of registered Republicans in New York voted for Paladino. I find it quite plausible that 10% of New York state Republicans could be racists.

274,903 Paladino voters, divided by 2,700,764 active registered Republicans = 10.17%.

Associated Press report of primary results for 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary, by county (15,076 precincts reporting, out of 15,385):
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/e...CTION=POLITICS

2010 NYS Voter Enrollment by County, Party Affiliation and Status, PDF:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYS...unty_apr10.pdf

And I must say that 16% total turnout is pathetic.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Of the 39 current black Representatives in the US House, 16 of them are from the south. Take your anti-Southern bigotry and stuff it.

And I'll bet almost all if not all of them come from majority black voting districts.

Quote:

Incidentally, none of them are from the great state of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts does have a black governor though.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by AlBell

But you better hurry before inflation kicks in.

Maybe you'd like to take up my open challenge?

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Now,why should I not draw conclusions from this?

Assuming for the moment your charge of "ZOMG RACIST!!1!!111!exclamationpoint" is true, why aren't you also considering the possibility that whatever faults Paladino may have, Cuomo is worse?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Assuming for the moment your charge of "ZOMG RACIST!!1!!111!exclamationpoint" is true, why aren't you also considering the possibility that whatever faults Paladino may have, Cuomo is worse?

What evidence can you point to that would support such a claim?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I agree that a number of you share the thread prize for a Pyrrhic Victory courtesy of extended mutual mental masturbation.

Your squirming under the light of the obvious is amusing.

Quote:

Luckily for actual voters like me, if you use similar critical thinking skills to dissect every politician and party you'll never find anyone worthy of your vote.

I think I can find plenty of non-racists to vote for, even in this election. If I were on the right, I'd go with Redlich; he's relatively sane.

Hell, I consider opposition to the Park51 development disqualifying for similar reasons, and I still find plenty of people to vote for.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What evidence can you point to that would support such a claim?

Well, for one thing, he's a Democrat.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Assuming for the moment your charge of "ZOMG RACIST!!1!!111!exclamationpoint" is true, why aren't you also considering the possibility that whatever faults Paladino may have, Cuomo is worse?

Because there is not the slightest reason to think he is.

I have used the term "shucking and jiving" myself for longer than I can remember.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Neally

His sexual misconduct is beside the point. The point being that a no name with no qualifications was elected with no rational basis.

There is also the possibility that he was elected due to improperly-progammed touch-screen voting devices that did not produce a paper trail.

Bear in mind that on the absentee ballots, nicely recorded for posterity on paper, he got his butt whacked off and roasted with a nice teriyaki glaze. Given that a large number of the absentee ballots were from soldiers, of whom a great many would have to be black, just on the basis of the population being polled, tells me that race was not the reason that people voted for him.

[The Painter]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I have used the term "shucking and jiving" myself for longer than I can remember.

You are a racist. A racist bastard. If there is nothing wrong with it, I dare you to say it to a Black man's face. Maybe a Black Panther. You will find out very soon it is racist. No offense Lefty, we are all racists to a degree.

As for Paladino, things are so bad in Albany the people are fed up with politics as usual. Do a google of NY government. It's the worst in the country.

Yes Cuomo is that bad. He is more of the same. Born into political system. I hope they debate. Cuomo has not said yes yet to a debate. I wonder why?


PS Was it racist when Obama called his grandmother a typical "white woman"?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by The Painter

You are a racist. A racist bastard.

Totally un-called for.

Quote:

If there is nothing wrong with it, I dare you to say it to a Black man's face. Maybe a Black Panther. You will find out very soon it is racist.

Context is important. I have told black people that I thought they were shucking and jiving in a situation where such apppeared to be the case. Rarely did any of them take offense, because there was nothing in my conduct to make them believe that I thought it was a typical behavior on the part of all or most black people. I can see why some might not tolerate your saying it.

Quote:

No offense Lefty, we are all racists to a degree.

Some of us, however, do not let some bias on our part lead us to treat others unfairly or to abuse their rights or their dignity or to value them less as human beings on the basis of their race.

Quote:

As for Paladino, things are so bad in Albany the people are fed up with politics as usual. Do a google of NY government. It's the worst in the country.

And the cure for corruption is to elect a racist sleazeball who can't keep his racism and perversion a secret because he thinks it's cute.

Very convoluted "logic."

Quote:

Yes Cuomo is that bad. He is more of the same. Born into political system.

Got proof that he is corrupt or abusive?

Quote:

I hope they debate. Cuomo has not said yes yet to a debate. I wonder why?

Maybe he knew already that Paladino is a pervert and a racist and does not want to show him that respect.

Quote:

PS Was it racist when Obama called his grandmother a typical "white woman"?

I don't know the context in which he made that remark, although it could have been a referrence to the fact that she had been taught the same sort of crap, in re race and society, as most women of her generation. It certainly does not mean that he had less respect for her than has any child toward his parents or their surrogates.

You are defending the indefensible with rather feeble tu quogues.