MSNBC Mocks Mitt Romney's Grandson (No bias)

[Booshman]

Both major parties need a good cleaning up. As do many of the toxic attitudes on both sides.

"That" I'll agree on.

[cutterx2202]

You're the inept one because you seem unable to read subtext. Every joke has a kernal of truth, and the "truth" that they're implying is his family adopted this baby for political gain, just as the republican party invites a "token black guy" to rallies for the same purposes.

And Dems elected an undisputedly unqualified, inexperienced person with unknown platform for the "first."


[Infracted]

[Booshman]

And Dems elected an undisputedly unqualified, inexperienced, token black president for the "first."

They also elected token black Shirley Chisholm and token black Jesse Jackson, who ran long before Obama. Oh wait...I see what you did. You just didn't think before you hit post, and demonstrated how to utterly fail at being clever.

[cutterx2202]

They also elected token black Jesse Jackson and token black Shirley Chisholm, who ran long before Obama, as well. Oh wait...I see what you did. You just didn't think before you hit post, and demonstrated how to utterly fail at being clever.

Are you denying the reason they chose Obama is exclusively because of his skin color?

[Booshman]

Are you denying the reason they chose Obama is exclusively because of his skin color?

Shirley and Jesse were president, as well? Because they were black democratic candidates, too. As your logic dictates, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN and I must have missed it. Since "Dems elect every black official that runs."

[Moralgy]

Are you denying the reason they chose Obama is exclusively because of his skin color?

Do you really want to open this can of worms?

[Booshman]

Do you really want to open this can of worms?

"Can of Derp", is more like it.

[Moralgy]

"Can of Derp", is more like it.

It is a can of something that he/she will probably brush off as "my party would never do that."

[Seranthor]

They also elected token black Shirley Chisholm and token black Jesse Jackson, who ran long before Obama. Oh wait...I see what you did. You just didn't think before you hit post, and demonstrated how to utterly fail at being clever.

Now you see, I cant and wont buy that Shirley and Jesse were elected as tokens... I do believe that their constituents elected them because they (the voters) thought they were the best ones for the job. As did the voters of MS when they elected Hiram Rhodes Revels (love the name Hiram btw) in 1870 and when the voters of MA elected Edward William Brooke III (Edward another fine regal name) in 1967.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you denying the reason they chose Obama is exclusively because of his skin color?

While I can say I am absolutely not a supporter of Obama, I can say without a doubt that he was nominated because he garnered more delegates than Hilary, Why did more delegates vote for him than Hilary (I wanted Hilary at the time btw), one can only speculate. To claim without facts that he was nominated because of skin color is offensive.

[Booshman]

Now you see, I cant and wont buy that Shirley and Jesse were elected as tokens... I do believe that their constituents elected them because they (the voters) thought they were the best ones for the job. As did the voters of MS when they elected Hiram Rhodes Revels (love the name Hiram btw) in 1870 and when the voters of MA elected Edward William Brooke III (Edward another fine regal name) in 1967.

I was being sarcastic.

[Seranthor]

I was being sarcastic.

I'm sure you were... I wasn't.. I belive that American voters are above voting solely on skin color...

[Ghostpanther]

I'm sure you were... I wasn't.. I belive that American voters are above voting solely on skin color...

I believe....some are. Maybe most. But certainly not all.

[Felya]

I believe....some are. Maybe most. But certainly not all.

Maybe most? I can see how that is an easy answer to jump on. It requires no critical thinking, no knowledge of what happened during primaries or elections, no policy, no knowledge of previous administration, no events that transpired at the time, no statistics based on previous voting. You just look at the guy and see he is black, so that must be why most voted for or against him... Easy peasy lemon squeezy...

It's funny to consider, but if you enter the argument Obama won based on race. You are doing the same thing as what's posted in OP. The difference is, the picture is of US presidents and Obama is the kid...

[Cthulhu 2020]

it devolves that way quite often because one side accuses the other side of being racists and folks dont take kindly to blanket attacks and some folks fight back.

The Republican party harbors a large number of racists. They even condone and back their legislation often times, when it is clear and blatantly racist. If you are not racist then that is fine, defend yourself in that regard, but when discussing the political climate, talking about dixiecrats is HIGHLY irrelevant. When discussing the current political climate, it's just straight up lying to yourself to say that Dems are just as if not more racist than Reps.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets simplifly the question, if vote fraud was proven to be a problem.....would you support voter id laws?

I would, but there has yet to be any kind of demonstration of any actually epidemic of voter fraud. At worst there's been a handful of cases where someone votes for their dead grandmother, which is about as indicative of an epidemic as a cough is indicative of the black plague.

In fact the fed recently told states that if they could do it in a way that would not infringe on 14th amendment rights (i.e. they wouldn't be preventing people from voting) and what does Texas do in a grand show of being Texas? Implements voter ID laws that prevent many blacks, latin-americans, and women from voting.

Most of the voter fraud that does go on doesn't even happen at the polls, where voter ID laws matter. It happens with absentee ballots.

[Seranthor]

The Republican party harbors a large number of racists. They even condone and back their legislation often times, when it is clear and blatantly racist. If you are not racist then that is fine, defend yourself in that regard, but when discussing the political climate, talking about dixiecrats is HIGHLY irrelevant. When discussing the current political climate, it's just straight up lying to yourself to say that Dems are just as if not more racist than Reps.

- - - Updated - - -



I would, but there has yet to be any kind of demonstration of any actually epidemic of voter fraud. At worst there's been a handful of cases where someone votes for their dead grandmother, which is about as indicative of an epidemic as a cough is indicative of the black plague.

In fact the fed recently told states that if they could do it in a way that would not infringe on 14th amendment rights (i.e. they wouldn't be preventing people from voting) and what does Texas do in a grand show of being Texas? Implements voter ID laws that prevent many blacks, latin-americans, and women from voting.

Most of the voter fraud that does go on doesn't even happen at the polls, where voter ID laws matter. It happens with absentee ballots.

Decklan, if I were to say the same things about Democrats that you say about Republicans I'd be infracted again. I chose not to be infracted again. You will have to find someone else to bait. I'm not biting.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Decklan, if I were to say the same things about Democrats that you say about Republicans I'd be infracted again. I chose not to be infracted again. You will have to find someone else to bait. I'm not biting.

You can say it if you leave out blatant insults of intelligence. You'd be wrong, but you could say it without an infraction.

It's been demonstrated time and again that a faction of the Republican party consistently tries to pass what is racist legislation, and the rest of the party not only doesn't speak out against it, they vote for it and even support it. Partisan loyalty is the only explanation I can see for the non racist Republicans to support voter ID laws, considering the majority of voter fraud happens with absentee ballots, which voter ID laws do nothing about.

MSNBC is pretty much the liberal version of Faux News. It's garbage, and just like Fox the only thing worth gleaning from it has to sifted out of partisan opinion. Anyone with a brain can see that. Yet for some odd reason a large number of liberals can admit MSNBC is garbage, but conservatives cling to Fox, breitbart, dailyfail, and a number of other clearly bias news sources.

It wasn't that long ago in a discussion about news channels, that someone, in an attempt to show that Fox was more quality news, linked a study that Fox had a very high percent of its viewerbase that trusted it as a reliable news source (something north of 60%) while MSNBC was in the 10%'s. That was really just telling of how gullible one side is.

[Kapadons]

Willing to bet if issues were split between social and fiscal, a large portion of people would be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Just guessing though. At least I know a portion of conservatives would.


OT: What they said isn't really racist. Racism is thinking one race is better than the other. Which nothing in this video shows. They never say whites are better than blacks or blacks are better than whites. Even insinuating the baby was only adopted because it was black really isn't racist either. Just a short-sighted,close minded opinion. She likely doens't have all the facts as to how that baby came to be in that family.

IMO, it was a lame joke that wasn't funny and wasn't really needed. More a dig at the Republican party. And I'm a conservatarian but their comparison holds merit. The republican party is largely white and those that are black are those that champion a fiscal platform more-so than a socially "Republican" platform.



I personally believe a large portion of black and Hispanic voters vote liberal because liberals platform is more indicative of social aspects of human rights and not so much on fiscal policy. You can find it easy to see that a Hispanic person would more closely identify with a party that wants to further their goals as opposed to one that worries about military,tax rates, and Christian values. White straight people on the other hand inherently gain "normal" rights. So they are more inclined to identify along fiscal lines than social ones. Just merely my opinion though.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Willing to bet if issues were split between social and fiscal, a large portion of people would be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Just guessing though. At least I know a portion of conservatives would.


OT: What they said isn't really racist. Racism is thinking one race is better than the other. Which nothing in this video shows. They never say whites are better than blacks or blacks are better than whites. Even insinuating the baby was only adopted because it was black really isn't racist either. Just a short-sighted,close minded opinion. She likely doens't have all the facts as to how that baby came to be in that family.

IMO, it was a lame joke that wasn't funny and wasn't really needed. More a dig at the Republican party. And I'm a conservatarian but their comparison holds merit. The republican party is largely white and those that are black are those that champion a fiscal platform more-so than a socially "Republican" platform.



I personally believe a large portion of black and Hispanic voters vote liberal because liberals platform is more indicative of social aspects of human rights and not so much on fiscal policy. You can find it easy to see that a Hispanic person would more closely identify with a party that wants to further their goals as opposed to one that worries about military,tax rates, and Christian values. White straight people on the other hand inherently gain "normal" rights. So they are more inclined to identify along fiscal lines than social ones. Just merely my opinion though.

I'm pretty sure if conservatives dropped the social conservative angle (accepted women's reproductive rights, gay rights, stopped being shit heels to minorities) they'd win a land slide victory. Unfortunately, it seems holding onto their ... "values" is more important than winning elections.

[Moralgy]

I'm pretty sure if conservatives dropped the social conservative angle (accepted women's reproductive rights, gay rights, stopped being shit heels to minorities) they'd win a land slide victory. Unfortunately, it seems holding onto their ... "values" is more important than winning elections.

What else would they have to legislate then?

I kid, but yea, the conservatives I know are all socially liberal, apart from this one fundamentalist christian woman.