Presidential Politics '04: The "Black Vote" Does it Exist?

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
Thank you Love Spell 6 for your opinion, Yes Christians do tend to interpret the Bible to suit their own purposes, As stated previously that all Christians shouldn't be monolithic, excuse me last time I checked, the Bible was not an option it states thou shalt not kill and that includes the innocent lives of unborn children. That's why I think America is under judgment and the Arab Nations want no part of our so called American Values and or Western Culture. If my people who are called by my name would humble themselves and pray, turn from their wicked ways then you would hear from heaven and I -God would heal their land. I don't know if I quoted it exactly verbatim but you get the point! America-(Government should be held accountable for abortion) God is not pleased when we do this!

Why is it that abortion is killing, but war is not?

I'm not saying abortion is right, but if "Thou Shall Not Kill" is truly what you vote by, why is it okay for you to vote for a candidate that wages war when it is not the last resort?

Also, how do you suggest we "hold the government accountable" for abortion? I really am curious about this point? As a law student that assertion is very interesting to me.

Also, why should the government be held accountable for abortion, which I don't deny is killing, but not for war? In all honesty, I don't understand.

I get the gist of your point, but it seems full of holes. Please correct me.

[Lady of Pearl]

As I stated earlier we have essentially no moral choice to choose from either of these two candidates one condones war the other condones abortion, as others have stated which is the lesser of two evils. It was understood that Bush has put this country at war. The question is why is America targeted? Could it be that this country has lost its moral center and that's what angers others? The government made abortion legal it can also make it illegal and thus that is why it has made those laws and should be held accountable for them.

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
Last I heard AXEAM with the media coverage in my state it was that neither showed up for the NAACP convention -and the Rev. Jesse Jackson even spoke out about their abscence,as I stated before I am not voting for the candidate,- I am voting for the issues,do we want jobs or abortion, as someone stated but I was hesitant to say it, who is the lesser of two evils!

Kerry did speak at the NAACP convention. It was a forty five minute televised speech.

[Lady of Pearl]

I didn't see any coverage of him at all in Ohio why so? Not only did I not see any remarks shown or broadcasted other than the fact that he campaigned here last week, I also did not see any people of color in the audience, and there were statements broadcast on the radio that he has no people of color working for him either!

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
As I stated earlier we have essentially no moral choice to choose from either of these two candidates one condones war the other condones abortion, as others have stated which is the lesser of two evils. It was understood that Bush has put this country at war. The question is why is America targeted? Could it be that this country has lost its moral center and that's what angers others? The government made abortion legal it can also make it illegal and thus that is why it has made those laws and should be held accountable for them.

This is very interesting to me and I wonder if the majority of pro-life advocates feel this way. I think a small lesson in constitutional law is necessary.

Basically the Supreme Court a LONG time ago decided that the Bill of Rights guaranteed the Right to Privacy. This was decided before Roe v. Wade even came to the Court. When it did, the Court had to follow its own precedent and hold that family matters and reproductive issues (which abortion is considered) were protected under the right to privacy (the Court had held this before.) Under stare decisis the Court must follow its own precedent unless it is completely anti-consitutional (like Separate but Equal). Plessy was overturned because the Constitution in no way advocates segregation- in fact it in no way even mention slavery which is why the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) is argued to have been unnecesary.

Its a hard argument to make that the Founders who included a considerable amount of Anti-Federalist (Founders against a large federal gov't with national laws) did not foresee a right to privacy. They didn't want a strong federal government at all.

I say all this to refute the statement that the GOVERNMENT "made abortion legal." In actuality privacy is inherent in the Constitution and the Supreme Court, looking to previous decisions as it must do in ALL cases, simply recognized the Founders' intent.

If someone made it legal, blame the Supreme Court, but its definitely not the GOVERNMENT. The Supreme Court is one of THREE branches of the government and they serve terms for LIFE.
They can retire or die, but NOT be "fired."

So again, I ask, how do you propose we hold them accountable?

That proposition is very interesting to me because if you can explain how you suggest we do that you may have well ansered a question that many presidents ask when they appoint a judge they think to be conservative/liberal to the Supreme Court and he judges the other way.

Consider Justice Berger of yore and today's Justice O'Connor. Jusitce O'Connor was nominated by Reagan, but pretty much decides every case these days as she is the swing vote. Its very predictable how the other 8 judges are going to vote, but she is the most middle of the road judge on the High Court, I'm sure to Reagan's dismay (when he was living). She is the reason the Michigan decision went 5-4.

But again I ask, how do you propose we hold them accountable?

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
As I stated earlier we have essentially no moral choice to choose from either of these two candidates one condones war the other condones abortion, as others have stated which is the lesser of two evils. It was understood that Bush has put this country at war. The question is why is America targeted? Could it be that this country has lost its moral center and that's what angers others? The government made abortion legal it can also make it illegal and thus that is why it has made those laws and should be held accountable for them.

One more question, why do others care about our morals? I don't care about the morals of Istanbul- I don't live there.

Why do you think our morals, or lack thereof, is what makes them angry? I agree America's morals are waning, but I don't see that that is what makes others angry. Why do you think its that?

There are plenty of moral-less societies, but they don't seem to make others angry. I think its more our hubris and war certainly didn't help that. We are run by white men who want to dictate life for people of color around the world.

Question: please answer, why do you think its our morals (or lack of) that makes others angry? Also, why aren't other moral-less societies [England, The Netherlands (Amsterdam is CRAZY), Canada (marijuana is often ignored) and Bahrain (Sin City of the Middle East) angering our enemies?

[mccoyred]

Sounds like censorship or selective reporting to me Isn't Ohio one of the 'battleground states'? Which party took Ohio in the 2000 election?

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
I didn't see any coverage of him at all in Ohio why so? Not only did I not see any remarks shown or broadcasted other than the fact that he campaigned here last week, I also did not see any people of color in the audience, and there were statements broadcast on the radio that he has no people of color working for him either!

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
This election IMO will boil down to social issues because most of the issues that Kerry and Bush differ on ARE social issues, which for SOME of us voters, are HEAVILY influenced by a personal's morals and values. And yes, that will include those of us are religious and are not afraid to be vocal about it and not waiver.

...rest deleted for space

I think the exact opposite is true. Presidential elections turn on the economy, and especially in what people perceive as tough economic times. And while foreign policy is usually a distant yawn to domestic politics, I think this year (Iraq/war, WMD?, Senate Intell's 9/11 Report) it will play right along as a top issue in voters' minds.

I think social issues have more "traction" when voters feel "comfortable enough" in their own situations economically. Think back to 1992. A lot of people personally liked G.H.W. Bush, and his prosecution of the Gulf War, but the economy tanked--so they made a change. I think President Clinton's 43 percent win wasn't a majority only because Perot was seen, by some, as a viable alternative. In 1996, the economy was humming---> Bill kept the big white crib.

I think presidential elections, historically, are referenda on the incumbent; folks make a determination on the job he's done, and then, if they don't like it, focus on the opponent and whether he'd do better. NBC ran a story/poll about a week ago that said since 1948? no president has gained re-election with job approval numbers below 50 percent after July 1. Bush's number in the poll was 46 percent.

Nov. 2 is 105 days away. We gon all see what's what.

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by mccoyred
Sounds like censorship or selective reporting to me Isn't Ohio one of the 'battleground states'? Which party took Ohio in the 2000 election?

George Bush carried Ohio in 2000, by I think 3 or 4 percentage points.

[AXEAM]

When did America ever have a moral center this country was founded on lying, double dealing and murder and rape. If one truly looks @ the history of America remember the massacre of the Indians, stealing land from Mexico and do we really have to talk about slavery. We've come to fool ourselves that we are the moral authority when we are just as bad as the worst of them (Nations we consider evil) just look around.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by Exquisite5


There are plenty of moral-less societies, but they don't seem to make others angry. I think its more our hubris and war certainly didn't help that. We are run by white men who want to dictate life for people of color around the world.

Truer words have rarely been spoken. Definitely add to that, "insanely wealthy white men" and "impoverished people of color." The balance of power in the world is atrocious--but, so many people have the bigoted attitude that since we hold the most weaponry, we have the most power and deserve it.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by TonyB06
I think the exact opposite is true. Presidential elections turn on the economy, and especially in what people perceive as tough economic times. And while foreign policy is usually a distant yawn to domestic politics, I think this year (Iraq/war, WMD?, Senate Intell's 9/11 Report) it will play right along as a top issue in voters' minds.

I think social issues have more "traction" when voters feel "comfortable enough" in their own situations economically. Think back to 1992. A lot of people personally liked G.H.W. Bush, and his prosecution of the Gulf War, but the economy tanked--so they made a change. I think President Clinton's 43 percent win wasn't a majority only because Perot was seen, by some, as a viable alternative. In 1996, the economy was humming---> Bill kept the big white crib.

I think presidential elections, historically, are referenda on the incumbent; folks make a determination on the job he's done, and then, if they don't like it, focus on the opponent and whether he'd do better. NBC ran a story/poll about a week ago that said since 1948? no president has gained re-election with job approval numbers below 50 percent after July 1. Bush's number in the poll was 46 percent.

Nov. 2 is 105 days away. We gon all see what's what.

Good point Tony. However, given the fact that economcially, both Kerry and Bush have the same stance, that's one of the reasons why I think social issues will probably be the "make or break" issue. It will be interesting how the "propaganda machines" turn for both candidates though.

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Good point Tony. However, given the fact that economcially, both Kerry and Bush have the same stance, that's one of the reasons why I think social issues will probably be the "make or break" issue. It will be interesting how the "propaganda machines" turn for both candidates though.

Well, I don't think their economic stances are all that similar, particularly in terms of where they'd focus tax relief. But, like most things political, that's open to debate.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
Canada (marijuana is legal)

Canadian resident here, and no, it isn't legal. Police just look the other way because they'd rather save prisons for rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, instead of the brother down the street who's slinging a little weed to help make ends meet.

[sigtau305]

Originally posted by TonyB06
George Bush carried Ohio in 2000, by I think 3 or 4 percentage points.

Ohio will be the big key for this Election.