Home› A Moving Train

West Virginia Whites = racists; 95% of blacks voting for Obama = not racist?

bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,059
edited May 2008 in A Moving Train
We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

Obama will still crush McCain.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    well it is West Virgina....it carries some stereotypical baggage.

    j/k
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

    Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

    Obama will still crush McCain.

    i agree. there is a good chunk of racists voting for both candidates.
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

    Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

    Obama will still crush McCain.

    It's not because Obama's black. It's cos he has charm, and a likeable slogan. The issues would do little to separate them.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Flannel ShirtFlannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    anyone who thinks race will not be or has not been a factor in this election is kidding themselves.

    Hillary doesnt seem sincere when she speaks and Obama does. That is her #1 problem and will have been the cause of her having lost the nomination, not the racism. Racism may cost Obama the presidency however.

    I suspect there are a lot of jerkoffs who will not vote for him simply because he is black. Sad, but true.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • satansbedbugssatansbedbugs On Tour Posts: 2,412
    Well its a good thing that the black canidate is the better of the two, IMO
    *Marker in the Sand Fanclub * HNIC

    Philly- 2005, 2013, 2016, 2024
    Camden 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2022, 2023
    Philly Spectrum 2009 x4 - We closed that MFER Down Proper
    Baltimore- 2024
    DC- 2006, 2008
    New York- 2008, 2010
    Boston - Fenway 2016 (night 2) , 2024 (night1)
    East Rutherford, New Jersey- 2006
    Chicago - Lollapalooza 2007
    Seattle- Gorge 2005
    EV Solo- DC x2, Baltimore x2 , Newark NJ x2,  Tower Theater x2 

    - Given To Fly
  • Given2Fly...SDGiven2Fly...SD Posts: 146
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

    Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

    Obama will still crush McCain.

    its racist when close to 30% of the voters that voted for Hilary ADMITTED that race was a reason they voted for Hilary. And that worrisome because thats the only the people that admitted to it.

    But again I don't think its right to vote for Obama cause he's black so its kind of a Catch22.

    Also viewpoints on the issues might be the same, but the means of resolving and finding solutions are completely different. I think the decision of which one of them to vote for should be based on what strategy you like best, as hope many voters of this primary did, I hope.
    San Diego, July 07, 2006
    Los Angeles, July 10, 2006
    Bridge School Benefit, October 21, 2006
    Bridge School Benefit, October 22, 2006
    Lollapalooza, August 5th, 2007
    eV., Los Angeles April 12, 2008
    eV., San Diego April 15, 2008
    Given to Fly___..
  • Given2Fly...SDGiven2Fly...SD Posts: 146
    I suspect there are a lot of jerkoffs who will not vote for him simply because he is black. Sad, but true.[/quote]

    I hope you are wrong.
    San Diego, July 07, 2006
    Los Angeles, July 10, 2006
    Bridge School Benefit, October 21, 2006
    Bridge School Benefit, October 22, 2006
    Lollapalooza, August 5th, 2007
    eV., Los Angeles April 12, 2008
    eV., San Diego April 15, 2008
    Given to Fly___..
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    And the daily show showed actual interveiws with those fat, stupid, ignorant, racist, fucks. While there may be racism on both sides, it's clearly the partially retarded/ low I.Q. on Hillary's. Why do you think she does so well in rural areas??
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black.

    Thank you Ms. Ferraro....

    Obviously Obama is benefiting from overwhelming black support, and in those states with a large black Democratic population, the vote is strongly affected by race. But to emphasize that point and pretend, therefore, that Obama is just winning because of race is totally ridiculous. He has won many, almost completely white states by larger margins than he has won largely black states and has he done very well in the largest states where the proportion of blacks is relatively small.

    No one yelled racism when 75-80% of "Black" people supported Bill Clinton and other "Democratic Canidates". Bill Clinton would have never been elected President in the 92 and 96 elections if not for the "Black" support. In both, he got greater than 80% of the vote. From my perspective "Blacks" have been and remain the unifying force in several areas of our society. That's why it was suprising that the Clintons and their surrogates attempted to make the "What" in this election seasons the fact that Seanator "Obama" happens to be considered a "Black" man. I suspect that "Blacks" are supporting him for the same reason that I am.

    If it weren't for the "black" vote in 1991 Bill and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where they are today.

    If it weren't for his white mother and grandparents who stuck by him, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today.

    If it weren't for the contributions of all races, America wouldn't be what it is today.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    How does Obama stand apart from Hillary 1) in his platform 2) in his voting record 3) in his ties to special interests and lobbyists?

    I'd just like to see something that says why he is the better candidate other that that Hillary is this scummy bitch.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    How does Obama stand apart from Hillary 1) in his platform 2) in his voting record 3) in his ties to special interests and lobbyists?

    I'd just like to see something that says why he is the better candidate other that that Hillary is this scummy bitch.


    Quit changing the subject. Go hi-jack another thread.

    Oh and I'm too tired to go through their voting records and platforms. But a huge difference in the two of them is foreign policy. Obama has stated that he will talk with all countries and try to resolve differences, she will not. She would rather threaten to obliterate any country that harms Isreal!!!!

    Even if they had the exact same policies and platforms, I can still make a decision as to who I think has a better chance of accomplishing them. And it has nothing to do with race. So your question is pointless.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    I don't believe a word any of them say at face value. It's all skuff...

    Look at what they do, and what they stand for.

    Words are cheap, and easily changed into explanations and concessions after the fact.

    you know....actions speak louder than words.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    brandon10 wrote:
    Quit changing the subject. Go hi-jack another thread.

    Oh and I'm too tired to go through their voting records and platforms. But a huge difference in the two of them is foreign policy. Obama has stated that he will talk with all countries and try to resolve differences, she will not. She would rather threaten to obliterate any country that harms Isreal!!!!

    Even if they had the exact same policies and platforms, I can still make a decision as to who I think has a better chance of accomplishing them. And it has nothing to do with race. So your question is pointless.

    I'll post whereever I damn well please and post about pop tarts and pixie stix if it the right mood strikes me.

    Obama has had the same firm stance Hilary has had on Israel, Iraq and Iran....there may be small details that are different but they are both for continuing this country down the road of imperialism and interventionism just the same as the Republicans. Tell me where you see that they aren't headed down this path unless you get too tired, that is.


    What would you use as your deciding factor then if they were exactly the same out of curiosity?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'll post whereever I damn well please and post about pop tarts and pixie stix if it the right mood strikes me.

    Obama has had the same firm stance Hilary has had on Israel, Iraq and Iran....there may be small details that are different but they are both for continuing this country down the road of imperialism and interventionism just the same as the Republicans. Tell me where you see that they aren't headed down this path unless you get too tired, that is.


    What would you use as your deciding factor then if they were exactly the same out of curiosity?

    Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    brandon10 wrote:
    Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.

    And they have as much of a chance of bringing some real change about as Obama but I still get to keep my conscience clean. ;)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Blacks voting overwhelmingly for a viable black candidate when there has never been a viable black candidate in the history of our country, when only 40 years ago segregation was the law of the land, when only 40 years ago interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, when institutionalized poverty, crumbling neighborhoods, and beyond substandard eductation is still rampant in this country, it can't really be classified as racism. Now, if an individual black voter is supporting Obama because that voter hates whitey, then maybe. But that's not really what's going on here. Blacks vote for white candidates all the time.

    When the main, stated reason a white person doesn't vote for a candidate is because that candidate is black, because they don't ever want to see a black office holder, because they just can't trust them darkies, that is, most certainly, racist.

    I grew up on the boarder of West Virgina in an Ohio county that went 72% to 23% for Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised by the WV results (or the overall Ohio and Pennsylvania results, either).
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    And they have as much of a chance of bringing some real change about as Obama but I still get to keep my conscience clean. ;)

    Zing! :D
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,059
    Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:
    It's not because Obama's black. It's cos he has charm, and a likeable slogan. The issues would do little to separate them.

    The white equivalent to Obama is John Edwards. He can speak well, he is well-educated, and spoke about change and the common man. You saw where that got him in the primaries. Yet Obama used the same message and spoke equally as eloquently, and you see where he is ending up.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,059
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    Thank you Ms. Ferraro....

    Obviously Obama is benefiting from overwhelming black support, and in those states with a large black Democratic population, the vote is strongly affected by race. But to emphasize that point and pretend, therefore, that Obama is just winning because of race is totally ridiculous. He has won many, almost completely white states by larger margins than he has won largely black states and has he done very well in the largest states where the proportion of blacks is relatively small.

    No one yelled racism when 75-80% of "Black" people supported Bill Clinton and other "Democratic Canidates". Bill Clinton would have never been elected President in the 92 and 96 elections if not for the "Black" support. In both, he got greater than 80% of the vote. From my perspective "Blacks" have been and remain the unifying force in several areas of our society. That's why it was suprising that the Clintons and their surrogates attempted to make the "What" in this election seasons the fact that Seanator "Obama" happens to be considered a "Black" man. I suspect that "Blacks" are supporting him for the same reason that I am.

    If it weren't for the "black" vote in 1991 Bill and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where they are today.

    If it weren't for his white mother and grandparents who stuck by him, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today.

    If it weren't for the contributions of all races, America wouldn't be what it is today.

    Again, John Edwards had the same message as Obama, if not even more over the top regarding helping out the poor and middle class. Yet, he did not do well in the elections.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,059
    brandon10 wrote:
    Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.

    To be honest, I was hoping that this thread would be a discussion about pop tarts and pixie sticks. I'm glad someone had the courage to bring it up. I just thought if I could bring up race, the discussion would naturally turn to pop tarts and pixie sticks (when doesn't it?).

    No hijacking in this thread so far!
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    The white equivalent to Obama is John Edwards. He can speak well, he is well-educated, and spoke about change and the common man. You saw where that got him in the primaries. Yet Obama used the same message and spoke equally as eloquently, and you see where he is ending up.
    Not true. Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution (though, he did apologize for that after the 2004 election), while Obama spoke out against it. That, and the fact that he's an also-ran, hurt Edwards more than Obama's "blackness."
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Again, John Edwards had the same message as Obama, if not even more over the top regarding helping out the poor and middle class. Yet, he did not do well in the elections.
    Nor did he do very well as a vice-presidential candidate, after doing fairly well as a primary contender in 2004 - and that was before Obama was even in the picture.

    The Obama = Black Edwards meme is simply wrong.
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    The white equivalent to Obama is John Edwards. He can speak well, he is well-educated, and spoke about change and the common man. You saw where that got him in the primaries. Yet Obama used the same message and spoke equally as eloquently, and you see where he is ending up.

    And as far issues go, Hilary's the female equivalent. So Americans are racist AND sexist for voting for either Hilary or Obama, and simultaneously not racist OR sexist for the same reason.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • Sludge FactorySludge Factory Posts: 976
    brandon10 wrote:
    Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.


    Pop tarts!? No way, man! The real electible breakfast pastry is the Toaster Strudel.
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    and there are people voting for Clinton simply because they have the same reproductive organs.

    Most people voting for the major parties do so because they are major parties or hell even many of the third parties in the spirit of inclusion, they don't really care about what they espouse, they are doing it out of habit or what they think they know about a person or political party... most people whether they vote or not do not care enough to pay that close attention to politics in general.

    so basically, if the guy plays a saxophone, or the girl is a girl.... or the guy looks like me... or the guy speaks well or the guy/gal looks tough or presidential to me..... or the guy is against those gays or the guy is gunna bring prar back inna dem schools that's my canidate... yes it's a stupid process.....full of not the brightest people on the planet. It's one of the major problems of the democratic process... but it's been that way for years now it's just that the canidates have become less worthy.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    RainDog wrote:
    Blacks voting overwhelmingly for a viable black candidate when there has never been a viable black candidate in the history of our country, when only 40 years ago segregation was the law of the land, when only 40 years ago interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, when institutionalized poverty, crumbling neighborhoods, and beyond substandard eductation is still rampant in this country, it can't really be classified as racism. Now, if an individual black voter is supporting Obama because that voter hates whitey, then maybe. But that's not really what's going on here. Blacks vote for white candidates all the time.

    When the main, stated reason a white person doesn't vote for a candidate is because that candidate is black, because they don't ever want to see a black office holder, because they just can't trust them darkies, that is, most certainly, racist.

    I grew up on the boarder of West Virgina in an Ohio county that went 72% to 23% for Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised by the WV results (or the overall Ohio and Pennsylvania results, either).

    As said by one of the whiteys being interviewed from W.V. " it's the Hussein thing, I can't vote for a Hussein, I've had enough of Hussein".
  • NeverbeenLedbetterNeverbeenLedbetter Posts: 213
    brandon10 wrote:
    As said by one of the whiteys being interviewed from W.V. " it's the Hussein thing, I can't vote for a Hussein, I've had enough of Hussein".

    There's a winner in every crowd
    Raleigh '03; Hartford '08; Mansfield II '08; Buffalo '10; Hartford '10;
    East Troy I '11; East Troy II '11; DeLuna Fest '12; Wrigley '13; Buffalo '13;
    Toronto II '16; Wrigley I '16; Wrigley II '16; Wrigley I '18; Wrigley II '18;
    Asbury Park '21; MSG '22; Camden '22
  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

    Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

    Obama will still crush McCain.

    This is pure bullshit and complete nonsense.

    I'm black...African American or whatever else label that is given and I'm NOT voting for Obama or Hilary Clinton and certainly NOT McCain. I'd rather vote for Nader than any of those three. You speak as if blacks are a major player in popular-ate vote, we only make up 13-14% of the US population.

    Hispanics make up to 25-28% of our population and they would have more of a deciding factor on who will become the next President than whomever Blacks would vote for. On Tuesday here in The Washington Post a West Virginia voter was asked would you vote for Obama, he said "I'd rather hang the darky from a tree".

    Guess what race was he from?

    It's all about his charm, charisma, intellectual, smart etc etc and many black people I know are latching unto those qualities and he clearly has a chance to be President in their minds. I'm not buying into none of it even if he was Martian, I just don't like ANY of the issues he stands for period.

    One can see why he gets a high percentage of the black vote after the BRILLIANT running of this country over the last 8 years by the *Decider*, minorities of any color are looking for someone, anyone who can lead this country back to where people can start to live a more uplifting lives with the issues that are affecting them on a daily basis.

    He just won't be getting THIS minority's vote.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • dangerboydangerboy Posts: 1,569
    RainDog wrote:
    Blacks voting overwhelmingly for a viable black candidate when there has never been a viable black candidate in the history of our country, when only 40 years ago segregation was the law of the land, when only 40 years ago interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, when institutionalized poverty, crumbling neighborhoods, and beyond substandard eductation is still rampant in this country, it can't really be classified as racism. Now, if an individual black voter is supporting Obama because that voter hates whitey, then maybe. But that's not really what's going on here. Blacks vote for white candidates all the time.

    When the main, stated reason a white person doesn't vote for a candidate is because that candidate is black, because they don't ever want to see a black office holder, because they just can't trust them darkies, that is, most certainly, racist.

    I grew up on the boarder of West Virgina in an Ohio county that went 72% to 23% for Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised by the WV results (or the overall Ohio and Pennsylvania results, either).

    when the main, stated reason a black person votes for obama is because "he's black", that is, most certainly, equally racist.

    when the main, stated reason a woman votes for hillary is because "she's a woman", that is, most certainly, equally sexist as a man not voting for her because she's female, too....

    don't think that just because you can find a bumpkin in rural america that still uses the term "darkie" that there aren't a few urban bumpkins around who still use the term "whitey"....

    yes, blacks vote for white candidates all the time. don't think there isn't a large contingent of blacks voting for him simply because he is black. i'm in north carolina, and trust me, it was openly discussed. and not by just one or two individuals. i heard way, way more of that than i heard whites say they wouldn't vote for him because he's black


    ebay isn't evil people are


    The South is Much Obliged
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    dangerboy wrote:
    when the main, stated reason a black person votes for obama is because "he's black", that is, most certainly, equally racist.

    Not exactly. What the poster you quoted said was 'When the main, stated reason a white person doesn't vote for a candidate is because that candidate is black', this is plain rejection, fear, xenophobia. If the main reason a black person votes for obama is because he's black and not because the others are white, it just doesn't sound the same, especially if he voted for white candidates in previous elections. He's not rejecting, he's just trying to get someone who'll represent him better (in his opinion) elected.
    I don't think it's a good idea but after a life of voting for 50-60 year old whites I understand some may found change to be symbolized by more than a slogan.
Sign In or Register to comment.