Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
boitumelo

NAACP AND MITT ROMNEY

Recommended Posts

PERHAPS I HEARD WRONG THE NAACP IS INVITING THIS IDIOT TO SPEAK/WHY/....MITT ROMNEY WILL HE WEAR A KLAN SHEET/MITT ROMNEY WILL NOT TALK ABOUT HIS MORON MORMON RELIGION THAT BELIEVE BLACK PEOPLE ARE AN INFERIOR RACE, HE AND THE REST OF THE KLAN TRASH REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT BORN IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE PRESIDENT IS THE ANTI CHRIST...WHO WILL THE NAACP INVITE TO SPEAK NEXT THE KLAN TRASH GRAND DRAGON...///.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama is the anti-christ, that is GREAT NEWS! For it won't be long til King Geezus comes down from the sky and makes all the bad people PAY BIG TIME!!!! Oh snap, I wonder if I made the 144,000. (All my bein good betta not prove to be a waste like it did in the case of Santa Clause!)

LOL@ "I do love that music."

Romney got booed. :-( Perhaps the crowd would have been much more receptive (possibly downright minon-like) if he played a saxophone and supported policies that were against African American interests yet belonged to the democratic party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was invited to address the NAACP convention this year but begged off because of a scheduling conflict. Why, I don't understand. How inconvenient could it be to work in a brief appearance at a gathering of the oldest black organization in the country! He bends over backwards to prove he's president of all the people which is supposedly why he doesn't show any favoritism to Blacks, yet he continues to jock the Chicago White Sox, actually refusing to accept a Chicago Cubs banner someone wanted to present to him. To me this is so silly. He should be non partisan when it comes to sports also. This may sound like something trivial, but it's a sore spot with many of his hometown Independent voters who love their Cubbies. To me this is a PR gaffe and another example of how ill-advised Obama seems to be.

I don't know what president ever catered to the best interests of any group except corporate America but politics is all about ass-kissing. And Obama the Democratic president who was elected by black Democrats needs to kiss black people's asses occasionally to appease them for being loyal to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique I don't understand it either. The NAACP should be outraged and should express this outrage -- but they won't...

Sure, the NAACP will express outrage by booing Romney. So predictable.

There is virtually nothing Obama can do to lose the support of 99.9% of the NAACP's membership.

I know when Obama comes to New York City you better have damn near $40K in cash to see him.

No matter who wins, things will get worse before they get better. Indeed things will HAVE to get worse before a leader can emerge to make things better. Of course while shit is hitting the fan Black folks will suffer the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy, predictable is correct.

Biden was there in front of the NAACP, twangin n' politickin. Surprisingly, he didn't say, "Where my homeez iz at?" Actually, he sounded as if he were trying too hard to do that trying- too- hard -East- Side -High- pep- rally voice that Obama uses when he addresses certain people.

Anyway, back to your adjective: predictable... The claps and the amen-vibe overtook the event as expected.

(My people, my people. )

I don't know if I would consider Obama's not attending an example of ill advising. It is probably the best move in terms strategically speaking. Especially this close to elections? Almost sure to be a suicide move.Think of all the black people that would probably be out there waiting to meet him with protests at such an event. The Press would have a field's day! Think of all the people who are not of color (and some of color) who would think that this would be an example of catering too much to one group of people. Those are just a few brief possibilities, but his attendance would have most likely opened and re-opened way too many doors of public discussion that could have a negative affect on public opinion. I guess he and his team weighed the pros against the cons of attending the convention and decided that the potential cons outweighed the potential pros. As an afterthought, some are already calling Biden's NAACP speech "divisive" as he mentioned Jeremiah Wright in a way that was not negative. I wonder what doors this alone might have opened

/re-opened. Hmm...

I'm not an Obama fan a'tall, but that does not make me blind to the fact that this president has got to be the most scrutinized, most criticized president of all time. I mean let's face it. We know that it is because of his race that he had to face so much even before he got sworn in to the office, because of his race that he didn't even really enjoy the benefit of the traditional "honeymoon" period. Every step he makes, there will be those on the left criticizing him for not doing enough, those in the center that feel as if he could be doing more and those on the right who first of all hate his chicken and watermelon smelling guts and outside of feel that he has done way too much.

I recognize all of that........ but he still ain't gettin no sympathy vote from this one. Will my -1 vote make a dent in the elections? I suspect that it will not. Yet, that is far less important to me than knowing that I will not add a drop to the bucket of piss that is, yet again, about to splashed in our faces..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Waterstar, considering that Benjamin Jealous, the Head of the NAACP was on MSNBC doing a lot of double-talk, saying absolutely nothing coherent in regard to why this organization understood the president not making an appearance before the gathering, - the NAACP apparently agrees with you, although nothing ol Ben uttered echoed what you said. I never did it get it straight what explanation he was trying to articulate.

Still, the candidates for the office of the presidency tradionally address the NAACP conventions along with those of the American Legion and the AFL-CIO. And I don't think Obama's appearing at the NAACP assembly could make his white detractors any more virulent or is he's going to make any converts. If he does get re-elected, it'll be because he "held serve" with the voting bloc he already had, most of who were represented at the NAACP meeting.

And, to me, Obama sends too many mixed messages, and that's why I continue to question his brain trust. It's like he's getting both white and black advice and they don't mesh; like the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing.

Meanwhile, my curiosity is piqued by those who dismiss the 2-party system, thinking they both represent futility. What is the alternative? Independents only cloud the picture. America is not Utopia and Altruists could not function in a political venue. To think the mythical "man on a white horse" is going to magically appear and gather the masses to him while expelling the bad guys, and bringing about a change wherein everybody will live happily ever after, is the stuff of a B-movie.

Finally, to be perfectly frank there hasn't been any drastic difference in my life over the past 40 years, no matter who the president was. I assume I'm the exception to the rule and this could have something to do with my being employed by and retired from the U. S. Post Office, which up until lately, was a pillar of stability in America. Whatever.

In the meantime, I may or may not vote. But I'm having fun ranting about the situation. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two-Party System

Summary: Is a two-party system preferable to a multi-party system?

Introduction

Author: Dr. Kevin J. Minch ( United States )

Context

The political systems of several nations are dominated by two parties, most notably the governments of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Other countries are nearly two-party systems, in the sense that two parties dominate and one or two smaller third parties ensure one or the other major parties maintains power (Germany being a good example). These systems stand in contrast to multi-party parliamentary systems where coalitions regularly shift (Israel, Japan, various Eastern European countries, various Latin American democracies). Recent developments have seen a number of countries, such as France and Italy, move towards a more two-party system as a number of smaller parties have come together under an umbrella organisation for the purpose of contesting elections. On the other hand, after the 2010 general election the UK now has a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government for the first time since 1945. The 2010 Australian election also failed to provide a majority in parliament for any one party.

There are strong voices on either side of the debate over which kind of system is preferable. Some countries began more as multi-party systems, but they gradually settled into a two-party pattern as the electorate’s preferences polarized. Other countries, traditionally dominated by one or two parties, have seen the gradual emergence of influential third parties (such as in Canada). Advocates of the multi-party system are fond of its diversity and the fact that it forces coalition building. Advocates of the two-party model argue that those governments are more stable and experienced.

Pros

Cons

Where two-party systems have emerged it is either the result, or reflection of the will of the electorate. Often the two parties represent key ideological divisions within society over the direction of policy, e.g. between left and right, small government and activist government, liberalism and authoritarianism. Most voters have little interest in the minutiae of policy, but they can understand the broad political choices presented them by a two-party system and make their decisions at election time accordingly.

While ideology and the will of the electorate may have been a factor at one stage in the development of a two-party democracy, these are historic factors that limit political progress today. The cold war with its left/right divisions is over and ideological labels are increasingly meaningless as, for example, traditional parties of the left have embraced the market. Such historic precedents mean that third parties often find it difficult to emerge later, even if they have a decent following. The dominant parties tend to shape electoral rules to the exclusion of smaller parties, and the more dominant parties tend to be the most successful at raising funds. This eventually reduces the choice of the electorate.

Governments in two party systems are more able to drive their policies through the legislature as they have a clear majority of the representatives there. This means they can implement important changes quickly and without compromise.

Multi-party systems tend to produce coalition governments which have to work to balance interests and produce a consensus around the need for change. This makes it more likely that such changes will be accepted by the country at large and not reversed at the next election.

Because two-party systems tend to be less volatile in terms of election results, voters retain their representatives as incumbents longer. This means the level of experience of legislators is greater. This results in better and more consistent policy, and more effective scrutiny of the executive.

Incumbency can mean complacency. The longer people hold office, the more comfortable they become and the less likely they are to take risks and make controversial decisions. They can even end up "captured" by lobbyists and losing touch with their electorate. The freer marketplace of ideas in a multi-party system forces politicians to adapt their message and become more responsive to minority voices.

Two-party systems are more stable. Because parliamentary majorities in multi-party systems can shift suddenly, those systems are far less stable. Multi-party systems are also less fair to the electorate, as the government and policies formed after an election are often the result of backroom deals between parties, not on the basis of manifesto promises and the number of votes cast.

The threat of a no-confidence vote, a collapsing coalition, or the departure of a coalition partner from a governing majority forces leaders to make compromises and compromises make for policies that serve the interest of the majority of the voters. Moreover, most countries have mechanisms in their constitutions to ensure a relatively smooth transition to a new government and new elections.

Two-party systems better reflect mainstream, centrist views. In order to remain competitive with only one other competitor, parties will tend to moderate their platforms.

Moderation is not necessarily in the public’s best interest. A multi-party system helps to ensure the views of a variety of different interests are considered when policy is made. Voters get more of a choice in the platforms they wish to support in a multi-party structure, ensuring that minority groups’ interests have a voice in the political process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparison Between two party and Multi-Party System

Ajay Rathore

Two Party vs. Multi-Party Systems:

Democracy has functioned as successfully in multi-party systems as in two- party system. There are, however, certain relative advantages and disadvantages of a particular system. To begin with, the supporters of multi-party system argue that: (a) it more effectively corresponds to the division of public opinion especially in a plural society like India; ( it represents and satisfies the aspirations of diverse interest groups; © under this system, a voter can choose among more parties and candidates than available under the two-party system; (d) it reduces the fear of absolutism of the majority; and finally (e) it is more flexible because under this system groups can be freely organized, can unite and separate in accordance with the exigencies of the circumstances.

In theory the multi-party system, has much in its favour, in practice not so much. As we see in India today, inability of any single party to command absolute majority and consequent inevitability of forming coalition government led to the crisis of stable government in India. The members of the Council of Ministers instead of working under the leadership of the Prime Minister seek guidance from their party bosses and even a single Member of Parliament tries to blackmail the government by threatening to withdraw its support.

Not surprisingly, the government does not find enough time to devote attention to the task of governance as it remains busy with keeping its partners in good humour even at the cost of national interest. The major party is also forced to abandon its electoral pledge to cobble a majority in the lower house of legislature. The Cabinet in consequence comes to represent, not a general body of opinions, but a patchwork of doctrines leading to a gap between the electorate and the government.

On the other hand, the supporters of two-party system argue that is enables the people to choose their government directly at the polls as voter is not perplexed by a multiplicity of candidates and he can simply opt between the two. Secondly, it providers unity of policy in the government since the party in power does not have to depend upon any other.

This facilitates effectiveness of the government. Thirdly, two parties hold each other in check and prevent either from being too extreme, since each party shall try to win over the supporters of the other and to appeal to independent voters. Fourthly, as democracy is supposed to be guided by the public opinion, the two-party system provides an ideal condition for debating the issues between two opposite camps.

Laski, therefore, observes, "A political system is more satisfactory, the more it is able to express itself through the antithesis of two great parties." But the two-party system has to pay certain price for the stability provided by it. This system implies that there are only two schools of thought in a country.

In reality, however, there is always a variety of opinions and ideas present in process of political thought and discussion. This is seldom recognized in a two-party system. Certain artificiality is thus inevitably introduced into this system leading to the establishment of vested interests in public opinion which is best illustrated by the American spoils system.

In addition, the two-party system brings about the decline of legislature and paves the way for cabinet dictatorship. The party in power backed by a solid majority inside the legislature reduces the latter to its play-thing.

In view of the above-mentioned advantages and disadvantages of the multi­party and two-party systems, it is not prudent to lay down a general rule concerning the desirability of a particular type of party system in all countries. As such the merits and demerits of the various party systems need to be seen in the context of various social, economic and historical forces at work in a given country.

The whole world need not be patterned according to English or American way of life. In fact, what is most crucial in this regard is the nature of political culture. If the splintering process in the multi-party structure operates within a broad framework of normative and institutional consensus, the party structure is not likely to experience enormous strain as we find in the case of Scandinavian countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea Mitt Romney got booed, he's a jackass anyway. President Obama not showing up, I don't know that he was advised correctly. I definitely feel he should have been in attendance it's the NAACP. But VP Joe Biden, I like him. He is to me back to back with our president. He says it like it is and sometimes gets himself into trouble, but I suppose that's all of us. The only problem I have is that I have never ever in life seen a President so disrespected. It's even sadder that the republicans would rather see our country go to hell in a hand basket that support our president. It doesn't matter his skin color he is still the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And my last comment on this can someone please tell me where is the weapons of mass destruction? We didn't get in the state that we are in because of President Obama, we got here from Wall Street and Wars that we should not have been involved in. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...