If the choice is being made based on race, that's racism. What about that connection is getting by you?

Our definitions of "racism" don't seem to be compatible then.

I don't consider a Christian who votes for another Christian because their religion to be anti-semitic, do you?

If the choice is being made based on race, that's racism. What about that connection is getting by you?

Unless that person is white, huh?

Ok, so exactly which part of "If people voted for Clinton because she is white, and so are they, that's not racism. " are you having a hard time with?

Voting for someone because you _like_ the color of their skin is not prejudice nor discrimination

Unless that person is white, huh?

Do tell.

Ok, maybe an analogy will help. During this year's Olympic games, I will be hoping that the USA athletes win, for no other reason than because they are from my country. Does this mean that I am prejudiced or discriminating against Chinese people? I certainly wouldn't think so, I have nothing against Chinese people.

As for the "2-1", I would give James the benefit of the doubt and assume that he saw Hillary winning 67%, and immediately recognizing that as the 2-1 threshold when there are only 2 options, not considering other names on the ballot.

Using race as a selection criteria isn't necessarily racism.

Do tell.

oh, and the problem isn't the missing 7%. It wouldn't mater how much was "missing." 67:26 is 2.5769:1. I was just wondering why that got rounded down to 2-1 instead of up to 3-1. Grewgills is correct about 5-2, but that might require too much math for the voting populace. It certainly would for the non-sportswriter reporting populace.

Using race as a selection criteria isn't necessarily racism.

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n.
1:The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Note the second def.

Using race as a selection criteria is discrimination by race, period. Whoa. Hold it. Alto. A'rret. Full stop. End.

There's no dancing around this one, Mike. Sorry. No sale.

It's almost funny; this level of equivocation was never had, even in the 60's by conservatives. But when liberals get hoisted on this petard, it's "let the dancing commence".

(Shake of the head)
So much for the post racial era.

FWIW, 67-26 is closer to 3-1 than 2-1.

What are the no-spin standards for such rounding?

The problem is the missing 7% (67+26=93%). Hillary only got just over 2/3 of the vote, meaning it was closer to 2 votes for Hillary for every vote not for Hillary (2-1). However, considering just the two, Hillary was closer to 3 votes for every vote for Obama (3-1).

Do you really not understand that either way, the votes were cast purely on the basis of race, which is by definition, racism?

Using race as a selection criteria isn't necessarily racism. If you need an actor to play Obama on SNL, choosing a black actor for the part isn't racism. Choosing a white actor for the part because you didn't want to use a black actor, solely because he was black, would be racism. Choosing a white actor because he was better/cheaper/more available than any black actors, would not be racism.

Similarly, voting for people who are like you is not racism, it's human instinct to want those who are most like us to be most successful, which is why white people voting for Clinton is also not necessarily racism.

Do you really not understand that either way, the votes were cast purely on the basis of race, which is by definition, racism?

What are the no-spin standards for such rounding?

5-2

Bit,
Do you really see no difference in African Americans voting to have the first African American president and whites voting to prevent it?

What are the no-spin standards for such rounding?

There is a moral difference between lifting up someone who is like you, and dragging down somebody who is different.

If people voted for Clinton because she is white, and so are they, that's not racism. If they voted for Clinton because they didn't want a black man to be President, that is racism. If they would rather vote for McCain despite disagreeing with his policies, just because he isn't black, that is definitely racism.

A neat pin dance you've got there, Mike.
Why would they want the black not to be president, if not for the sole reason of wanting the white to hold that office, more?

Funny thing; he didn't level that charge when Obama caught 99% or so of the black vote in South Carolina. Here again comes the 'racism can only flow in one direction' nonsense. No shock, I suppose that the Times should be the source of this idea.

There is a moral difference between lifting up someone who is like you, and dragging down somebody who is different.

If people voted for Clinton because she is white, and so are they, that's not racism. If they voted for Clinton because they didn't want a black man to be President, that is racism. If they would rather vote for McCain despite disagreeing with his policies, just because he isn't black, that is definitely racism.