Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if they thought he wan't representing their interests in one way or the other that works for them, they probably would have voted him out by now. Apparently, he is and they approve.
Again for the record this election was for a district that covered both Harlem and part of the Bronx. Mr. Rangel did well in the former and was able to good enough in the second to eek out 47%. His opponent OTOH while doing well in the Bronx couldn't pry enough votes out of Harlem to win.
If the Bronx district had a better turnout and or more votes went for his opponent Mr. Rangel would not have won.
IIRC Mr. Rangel is part Hispanic/Latino or some such and used his long time connections to that demographic to reach voters. Older residents especially saw a Congressman who has "delivered" for the district and his opponent has an "upstart". They also can and did conveniently overlook Mr. Rangel's past indiscretions such as tax evasion and those several RS below market apartments.
The same thing that's wrong with people in your district. You vote for people that put their personal interests ahead of the nation's interests.
No, the people elect those who are the closet to representing their personal value system. In this case, the majority of the folks in Harlem did not consider Rangel's ethic's issues because they have no personal ethic's themselves. Those that do have one and feel it's important to them did not vote for him. Another consideration is the black support. It's widely known that blacks in certain geographical areas will always vote for another black person regardless of that persons ability. We can see that clearly represented by Shelia Lee Jackson and several other black Senators and Representatives.
I am not being totally fair, your statement does apply here because Rangel since the interests of the folks that voted for Charlie are above that of the nation and more geared toward self interests such as free money and someone to take care of them, so you are correct to some degree. You just missed the first part about having no personal ethical boundaries.
No, the people elect those who are the closet to representing their personal value system.
What a convenient (and wrong) metric you pulled out of thin air (or just plain made up) so you could launch a full scale assault on the largely minority voters of Harlem and the Bronx.
To correct you, people elect those who are closest to representing their political ideologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
In this case, the majority of the folks in Harlem did not consider Rangel's ethic's issues because they have no personal ethic's themselves. Those that do have one and feel it's important to them did not vote for him. Another consideration is the black support. It's widely known that blacks in certain geographical areas will always vote for another black person regardless of that persons ability. We can see that clearly represented by Shelia Lee Jackson and several other black Senators and Representatives.
If your first statement was true (and it's not) your racist rant might not be totally out of bounds here. But your first statement seems like a justification you thought up after the fact for the bigotry you were dying to spew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
I am not being totally fair
Understatement of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
your statement does apply here because Rangel since the interests of the folks that voted for Charlie are above that of the nation and more geared toward self interests such as free money and someone to take care of them, so you are correct to some degree. You just missed the first part about having no personal ethical boundaries.
Part II of the racist diatribe. I liked part I better, it was less clunky.
No, the people elect those who are the closet to representing their personal value system. In this case, the majority of the folks in Harlem did not consider Rangel's ethic's issues because they have no personal ethic's themselves. Those that do have one and feel it's important to them did not vote for him. Another consideration is the black support. It's widely known that blacks in certain geographical areas will always vote for another black person regardless of that persons ability. We can see that clearly represented by Shelia Lee Jackson and several other black Senators and Representatives.
I am not being totally fair, your statement does apply here because Rangel since the interests of the folks that voted for Charlie are above that of the nation and more geared toward self interests such as free money and someone to take care of them, so you are correct to some degree. You just missed the first part about having no personal ethical boundaries.
You don't know a thing about the people in Harlem. All you know is that many of them are black. My goodness...you're from Don Young's state (and district)...a crook if there ever was one. And don't tell me that Alaskans didn't know he was a crook either.
So what does that say about you and your state? Do you all lack ethics up there too? Apparently so.
LMAO...an Alaskan with the nerve to talk about Harlem when they elected Don Young's crooked ass....REPEATEDLY!
Only on CD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
