Blacks have good nonracist reasons to prefer pols of their own race; whites don't

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@What the .... ?!?!

Some have.

Cite? At least for any signifcant number.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

I’ve been very clear about this.

Let me say it again: Voting for someone primarily on the basis of race is wrong, and rascist, always, for any permutation of races.

So that means your answer is “yes” . . right?

I’m currently trying to fathom your logic: why you began your post with “In that case, then…”.

Because the ulimate question is whether or not there exist legitimate reasons to engage in a particular course of conduct.

The original poster seems to be claiming that there exist no legitimate reasons for a white voter to choose a white candidate on the basis of race.

I can only assume that you took my opinion that there may be legitimate reasons for a wealthy person to vote for tax cuts as a tacit admission that voting out of self-interest is legitimate.

No, that’s not how I took your opinion at all.

One thing I have assumed is that by ‘legitimacy’, you’re asking a moral question.

Correct.

[foolsguinea]

@Algher

Blacks DO have a self interest reason to vote for a black politician. The belief that a black politician will benefit them more than a white one. This might not be correct, but it is certainly a good hypothesis. It is not racism, it is presumed self-interest.

Whites can follow the same reasoning, and assume that a white politician will benefit them more than a black one. This, again, is not racism, it is presumed self-interest.

Um, a racialist presumed self-interest, which may not be rewarded in reality, is not a racist assumption how? Maybe you mean they’re not bigots, or committers of hate crimes, but sounds like sort of soft racism to me.

…

Well, maybe. It’s racialist, I guess.

[RickJay]

@Little Nemo

To which I replied that people do move to places like Mexico and Panama for the reasons I described.[/ You’re the one who said if A were true then B would be happening.

I specifically said “by the millions.” Which is not happening.

Indeed, if your theory was true, then we’d see all kinds of behaviour we don’t see. There would be net migration OUT of rich countries, not into them, which is the opposite of the truth. Rich people would never want to live in rich neighborhoods; they’d move into poor neighborhoods.

If you think this has anything to do with “Trickle down economics,” which is largely a taxation theory, we’re obviously way, way apart on this.

[Little_Nemo]

If you think this has anything to do with “Trickle down economics,” which is largely a taxation theory, we’re obviously way, way apart on this.

I’m saying they both work in the same manner - promising that everybody will benefit from a program. Some people will benefit in a direct and obvious manner. The rest will theoretically benefit by receiving some intangible and nebulous good that everyone will receive at some unspecified future point.

As for net migration, it’s meaningless to this discussion. I specifically based it on fixed incomes in locations with different costs of living. Obviously most people who immigrate to America are not expecting to maintain the income they made in their native country. They expect to receive a much higher income which will outweigh any cost of living increase. Find the statistics on people who cross borders while keeping their income steady and then tell me which direction mass migration is flowing.

As for the numbers, this website says it is millions:

The answer for a growing number of Americans making the leap into early retirement is moving to a country with a lower cost of living. The U.S. State Department estimates some 4 million Americans live abroad, not counting military and embassy folks. About a quarter of those are estimated to be retirees.

Poke around on the Web, and you’ll find a whole industry devoted to retirees looking to live like a despot on $15 a day – usually under tropical skies with daily maid service and umbrella-bedecked drinks thrown in for good measure.

From a financial perspective, spending your golden years overseas is certainly tantalizing. Consider how far your Social Security checks might go:

* In Ajijic, Mexico, a community near Guadalajara that's home to more than 3,000 expatriate Americans, where you can rent a sprawling three-bedroom, two-bath hacienda for about $700 a month.

* In English-speaking Belize, where retirees don't have to pay taxes on the first $75,000 of income and where property taxes on a $500,000 home run about $90 a year.

* In Spain, where the weather is good, health care is affordable and the rest of Europe is at your doorstep.

The cost of living may even be low enough for you to retire years earlier than you might otherwise.

Louisiana banker Tom Vidrine, for example, fell in love with Belize on his first trip to the Central American country in 1990. He bought a vacation home and spent the next seven years saving money so that he could retire in 1997 at the ripe old age of 45. He says an American can live a comfortable life on one of Belize’s many tropical islands for $2,000 a month, or half of that on the mainland.

“My only regret,” said Vidrine, “is that I did not come sooner.”

There’s numerous websites based on the expat community. Here’s some passages:

Living in Mexico costs about one-third of what it costs to live in the States. Depending on where you make your home, it is possible to live very well in Mexico on 2000 per month—even less. After all, a pound of oranges costs about .19, a dozen eggs $1.12, a dozen fresh long-stemmed roses $3, and a full-time maid $50 per week! Sure, in the fanciest areas of towns like San Miguel and Puerto Vallarta, higher rents drive monthly expenses up. But outside the ritzy areas—in the countryside and the smaller villages—houses rent for as little as $200 or $300 a month. cite

On the one hand, this is a comment on how affordable Paris can be. This is a place where even a modest lifestyle can feel rich, where the greatest pleasures–strolls along the Seine, afternoons in the Luxembourg Gardens–come gratis. cite

-What about housing, have you bought, or are you renting a home? How much do you pay for it?
We rent. Buying property is not an option here unless you are a citizen, it is illegal. Rent is very inexpensive here. I have a very large house (I also operate my business from my house, with about 6 employees, etc). My house is about 4500 square feet in size. I pay around $600 per month for that. For smaller houses that would be good for one or two people, you can easily rent a nice place for $100 to $200 per month here.

-What is the cost of living in the Philippines?
The cost of living here is very low. A few things are more expensive, though, like electricity, gasoline and such. But overall, things are very inexpensive here. Food, in particular is very cheap. For any expat thinking of moving to the Philippines, budget is not a big concern. cite

One of the Cheapest Cities Worldwide

Mercer Human Resource Consulting, which publishes an annual list of the cost of living in cities worldwide, recently put Buenos Aires 142nd, out of 144 cities ranked. What was slightly more expensive than Buenos Aires? Bangalore, India. The only two cities that were cheaper were Manilia, Philippines and Asuncion, Paraguay.

The fact that there was high inflation this last year does not surprise me at all. The economy is on the mend. Unemployment is down. There are more pesos to be spent and more employed people to spend them. Looking at where Argentina ranks – 142nd out of 144 cities – there is nowhere for it to go but up. So, yes, things may start to cost more here.

However, you can still live in a cosmopolitan capital city with a very European culture, architecture, and citizenry at the price of living in Bangalore, India. In what European capital city can you buy a 1000 sq. ft. apartment in one of the nicest areas in town for just $100,000 USD? None. cite

Bolivia has a lot to offer…a very low cost of living, unspoiled natural environment, friendly people and a range of climates to suit virtually every taste.

Property prices are among the lowest in Latin America and it has the potential to become the world’s next great expatriate haven. cite

For working American expats, the relatively low cost of living in Thailand and often generous remuneration packages, provide disposable incomes far greater than would normally be achievable back home. With proper financial planning this means that you could be in a much better position to retire comfortably wherever you choose to live. cite

[What_the]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Cite? At least for any signifcant number.

Dio, you kill me!!

In your haste to demand a cite, you don’t even realize I was agreeing with you… some blacks have shown a willingness to vote for whites. No cite needed, thank-you.

Perhaps you really wanted a cite for the next statement … that other blacks have never before voted in their life and in many cases their voting for Obama now is purely racist.

No cite needed really. That would only serve to generalize and judge a whole class of people. We aren’t supposed to do that are we?

[Mijin]

@brazil84

Is it just as legitimate for a black person to vote for a black candidate for president because of race as it is for a white person to vote for a white candidate for NYC mayor because of race?

@Mijin

Let me say it again: Voting for someone primarily on the basis of race is wrong, and rascist, always, for any permutation of races [in my opinion].

@brazil84

So that means your answer is “yes” . . right?

I suppose you could say that was a “yes”. It would be misleading though.

I’m saying it’s never legitimate, in my opinion. So yes it’s “equally legitimate” in both cases: not legitimate at all.

[brazil84]

@Mijin

I suppose you could say that was a “yes”. It would be misleading though.

I’m saying it’s never legitimate, in my opinion. So yes it’s “equally legitimate” in both cases: not legitimate at all.

Thank you.

[What_the]

Looks like this one is settled …

Blacks have both racist and non-racist reasons to vote for black candidates.

Whites have both racist and non-racist reasons to not vote for a black candidate.

Apart from that we certainly wouldn’t want to generalize based on skin color now would we?

One thing is certain though… relatively speaking, blacks will get a pass on their racism and film clips of a cracker in Mississippi saying he’d never vote for that N… are just a mattet of time.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

No black racism has been demonstrated. To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race. White trash racists in states like WV and KY were doing the latter. There has been no demonstration that any significant number of black voters would refuse to vote for a white candidate and they have, in fact, already done so for generation after generation. Early on in even this primary season, black voters initially supported Hillary more than Obama.

The attempt to portray some kind of equivalent racism here is, as it almost always is, complete horseshit.

[Plexi_Guy]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No black racism has been demonstrated. To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race.

Not sure I agree with this. You are saying it’s OK to prefer one race over another, and not be racist?

What about if I’m hiring somebody? Is it OK to prefer whites, as long as I don’t have a ‘No Blacks!’ policy?

[What_the]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No black racism has been demonstrated. To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race.

Let’s try to be simple then. A black guy knows nothing about a candidate other than he’s black and believes that he is likley to expand affirmative action. He votes black and that is ok.

A white guy has only the same knowledge and he believes that affirmative action will hurt him so he votes white. That is bad, huh?

@Diogenes the Cynic

White trash racists in states like WV and KY were doing the latter.

Those are DEMOCRAT white trash racists by the way. Please don’t forget that.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@What the .... ?!?!

Let’s try to be simple then. A black guy knows nothing about a candidate other than he’s black and believes that he is likley to expand affirmative action. He votes black and that is ok.

Correct.

A white guy has only the same knowledge and he believes that affirmative action will hurt him so he votes white. That is bad, huh?

The white guy isn’t voting based on affirmative action but upon a bigoted fear of putting a black person in power. Affirmative action is really neither here nor there. Those white trash racists are refusing to vote for a black candidate just becausehe’s black, not for any policy rason.

Those are DEMOCRAT white trash racists by the way. Please don’t forget that.

So?

[holmes]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The white guy isn’t voting based on affirmative action but upon a bigoted fear of putting a black person in power. Affirmative action is really neither here nor there. Those white trash racists are refusing to vote for a black candidate just becausehe’s black, not for any policy rason.

Further, the majority of people who benefit from affirmative action have been women…so if he’s voting to protect himself from blacks getting his position by voting for a white person, instead of a black one; he’s still voting against his best interests and gains nothing.

[RickJay]

@Diogenes the Cynic

To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race.

Boy, we certainly have gone through the looking glass on this one, huh?

[you_with_the_face]

@holmes

… he’s still voting against his best interests and gains nothing.

Unless he’s married to a white woman who brings home a paycheck that she wouldn’t be getting if not for AA.

[holmes]

@you with the face

Unless he’s married to a white woman who brings home a paycheck that she wouldn’t be getting if not for AA.

Yeah, but she doesn’t count, the government owes her. She’s different…it’s dem other women and minorities he’s got to protect his rights from.

[Little_Nemo]

To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race.

So it wouldn’t be racist to vote for John McCain because he’s white but it would be racist to vote against Barack Obama because he’s black? That’s a pretty fine line you’ve drawn.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No black racism has been demonstrated. To put it simply, it is not racist to vote for somebody because of their race. It is racist to refuse to vote for somebody because of their race.

That’s your own, ad hoc definition of racism. I don’t agree with that ridiculously narrow use of the term.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Let me put it another way, it’s not racist to vote for someone of your own group when a.) you’ve never had a chance to do so before and b.) you have already showed a willingness to vote outside that group in the past. There is a difference between saying, for instance, that “I’d like to see a woman become President,” and saying, “I’d never vote for a woman.” The belief that a candiadate should be disqualified because of something like race is bigoted. A longing to see a candidate of a demographic who has never been represented before is not. None of the black voters supporting Obama are averse to voting for whites.

Plus the history and power differential makes the comparison asinine anyway.