Quote:
Originally Posted by LionOfJudah
Well to assume that because the Democratic Party "pacifies" the AfAm vote doesn't make the other choice any better. The Republican Party ignores the AfAM vote......so the question then becomes "would you rather be pacified or ignored?" Hmmm interesting....I was raised by 2 Republican parents who were Republican when Republican wasn't cool in the AfAm community. I was also raised in a very political and highly educated household. So I understand the ideals of pacification and know it when I see it....(the Republican Party in the AfAm church, prime example of pacifying a race). They don't care about AfAms, they just have common enemies...those who are perceived as "immoral".
Now as for the 2 books I never said those books made him a candidate for President nor did I say that I felt like I knew him. I said it gave me the impression that he was "different".
On to your Oprah comment. I would also like to address the idea of Oprah being President. That idea is neither far fetched nor unprecedented. You have an actor turned President in Ronald Reagan, and actor/body builder born in another country as Governor of a State....so why not Oprah? Not saying I would vote for her but let's not pose the question as if it is impossible or unconscionable.
|
Option C: Neither.
Being pacified is being patronized. It's almost worse than being ignored.
When someone is patronizing you they are say "yeah...yeah...you aren't going away so we'll throw you a bone to shut you up." I'd rather someone be upfront and honest about not thinking certain concerns are important so I can know where they stand and vote accordingly.
Black people don't need to align to any political party. Democrat doesn't hold much more tradition or relevance to Blacks than Republican does. Vote based on platform. This way parties will have to work for votes without being able to count on getting a majority of Black voters.
Sorry, T La Rock, LL killed it. 
Threaded Mode
