Attn: you cant say Obama is popular because he is black

Nevermind

cornnifer wrote:

Whereas many of the differences are subtle:

i prefer his healthcare plan
i prefer his diplomacy ideas
i prefer his education ideas
i prefer his opposition to iraq from the giddyup and his plan to end it carefully and responsibly
i prefer his views on affordable college education
i prefer his "bottom up" approach
i prefer his emphasis on individual responsibility...
there is much more...
and none if it has to with the fact that he's black.

Their views are almost identical

DixieN

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What if you geniuninely believe her to have been involved in felony international drug trafficking with the CIA, and also a conspirator to murder? Oh, and you think she is an unchecked global government elitist (and acording to Larry Nichols, atleast, a former card carrying communist) who has aims of selling the United States out to the "global union" just like Gordon Brown did last week selling Britain to the EU ... all without the vote of the people?

Is it stil me, or if the allegations are accurate, is the hate justified?

Google "clinton mena" and "vince foster murder", for starters.

Are you justified in hating others based on beliefs? Ever? What do you actually know? Not much. If any of what you say were true, wouldn't Obama be on it? He's got better sources than you do, I am inclined to think, since he is, after all running for president, and you are not. If I believe you are Satan, am I justified in hating you? Based on a belief? The belief might not be the most rational thing I could subscribe to, might it not?

DixieN

my2hands wrote:

first it was America was not ready for a black president...

now that he is winning they say it is because he is black...


fucking hilarious




not to mention 51% of the population is female, and an even larger % of voters are female... so if we are talking demographics based on gender/race Hillary has a clear advantage...



Bill Clinton will do anything to win his 3rd term...

51% percent of the population may be female, but at least half hates Hillary, whereas at least African Americans are not debating whether Obama is African American enough for whatever reason. I've heard that Clinton is not feminist enough because she didn't divorce Bill and therefore worth disliking. I've heard that she's too much the feminist, and therefore not worth supporting (and disliking). These women think that Hillary's not woman enough to be president for one reason or another.

But, point made...I do think a lot of people don't like Hillary because they actually don't like Bill. It'd be nice to have them come out and just say that. That would make sense and be at least somewhat fair. You don't want to see him in the WH. I could get that. But the projected stuff....that bugs to no end.

Personally, I never disliked Bill. I thought Monica-gate was too bad, but his own business. He was a pretty good president.

DixieN

puremagic wrote:

Give me a break. Obama, whether you support or don't support him. Is a black man running for President of the United States, all the what if he was a she and she was white, or he was a jewish, hispanic, asian, irish or white woman he wouldn't have a chance. It didn't make any sense when Ferraro said and it make less sense as it goes through repeats.

BOTTOMLINE, Hillary's strategy was to tap into people's pride. The people of Pennsylvania who were grateful just to be working. What better way to do this than to have Ferraro associate Obama with affirmative action. So the underlying message to the people of PA is - look - here is another affirmative action black person taking a white man's job. People whether they are racist or not can relate to that message.

The strategy will work because just like Ohio they have lost jobs and industry to NFATA. People forget NFATA is Clinton's doing, she's not going to bring quality jobs back to PA, OH or MI. Hell she to invested to even try. These people don't need another Walmart, Target, Home Depot or Lowe's because no one has the extra money to go shopping or build any damn thing. The only thing keeping OH afloat is the military base and its supporting function. MI had the Great Lakes and easy transport to/from with Canada. Once the Superhighway is completed, MI can be bypassed or become a truck stop because the bulk of the industry will be coming out of Mexico to Canada and through the Gulf to South America. PA your on your own, most of your resources have been tapped out, your waterways are of minimal importance to commerce and there's no military advantage. Politically, Hillary knew Pennsylvania would have been expendable had the race not been this close. She had nothing prepared for you, so she gives you the race card.

The stories about both Obama and Clinton both posturing about NAFTA are probably both true. NAFTA is actually not the evil that most people think. Yes, we've lost jobs due to NAFTA, but more jobs have been created than lost under NAFTA. Both the candidates will play this card to win your vote; and NAFTA just isn't the walking plague it's portrayed to be. She hasn't given anyone the race card. She said nothing, except that she disagreed with with the statements made and she let the person saying them go.

DixieN

cornnifer wrote:

i agree with much of your assessment here, with a few minor exceptions. She is definitely, i think trying to associate Obama with affirmative action to woo voters. Where i disagree with your assessment, in regards to this, is on the issue of one's ability to relate to this tactic "whether they are racist or not". The fear of affirmative action, in and of itself, is perpetuated by an institutionally racist portrayal of affirmative action, therfore, IMO, anyone buying into clinton's ploy here is buying into it because of a subtle racism they may not even be aware of. Clinton's strategy here is to tap into that subtle racism and turn it into votes. Her strategy here is, itself, racist and dispicable. (BTW Obama's success has absolutely dick to do with affirmative action, the notion is laughably ridiculous).
The second exception i have, is based more on hope. i'm not sure the strategy will work. It very well may, which is sad, but at this point, i'm giving voters the benefit of the doubt that they will see right through this shit. This strategy may end up hurting her. Part of Obama's success is, in part, because of his ability to trancend race and this type of divisiveness. People, i think, especially young people, are tired of it. He has done it quite well.
The bottom line is, really, if Obama was a White fella, he would have had this nomination locked up along time ago! Because he is Black, and because this is still the United States, he has had to work even harder to get to where he is. The fact that he has done so well encourages me as to how far we've come as a nation in regards to issues of race. The fact that we still have someone like clinton and her surrogates using these types of tactics, to some degree of success, proves that we still have a ways to go.

Of Obama was a white fella, he might well still be ahead of Clinton. What does your state senate look like? What does our Congress look like? If you elected women proportionately to the population, about 51% of Senators should be women. 51% of Representatives. Are they? No where near. Obama's rise is encouraging in terms of where we are as a nation in terms of race. However, I'm not too happy with where we are as a nation in terms of opportunities afforded to women and playing fields they are placed on, which are very slanted.

DixieN

puremagic wrote:

Question: If the novelity of Obama's success so far is because he is black. Why wasn't Jackson more successful?

Jackson wasn't historically in the right place at the right time, plus you can argue that he ran as a Black candidate, essentially, for other Blacks. Obama is not making the mistake of running only for a subset of people. And he is in the right place at the right time to be able to do so.

KDH12

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A bit lacking in rational argument to my response, perhaps?
You don't have a REAL reply to that?

[counter edit]

Counter edit....? is this about keeping score.....

What REAL response were you looking for?

You agree with Ferraro and I don't agree with either of you.

What is the point of carrying on a debate in some online forum like this..... uhh no point that is why I left it alone.

However you want a REAL answer..... this is what I believe.

You say that Obama is only where he is because he is black....

I say what if Obama was not running and it was just Clinton and Edwards, I think that Edwards would have been in the same exact position more less that Obama is in.... he is white, but a similar message..... therefore it has nothing to do with "skin tone" as you suggest.

Don't get distracted by his skin color THAT IS WHAT CLINTON WANTS YOU TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!

DixieN

callen wrote:

Positon on abortion, position on gay rights, postion on this war. Think that should do it.

How are Barack's different from Hillary's? It doesn't do it for me since I've been to both of their websites and find that for all practical intents and purposes, they hold the very same positions, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Obama has flopped around on his position the war...at one point even saying that his position was similar to Bush's. Now he's back to saying it's lightyears from it. That's a politician for you. They all flop around to tell you whatever it is you want to hear. Clinton, included.

cornnifer

DixieN wrote:

Personally, I never disliked Bill. I thought Monica-gate was too bad, but his own business. He was a pretty good president.

The fact that Monica blew Bill in the Oval office, though heinous, i was almost willing to write off, as you have, as his own personal business and no real concern of mine. It's the lying, perjuring, evidence tampering business i have a problem with.
Furthermore, there is a problem with comparative perception. Sandwhiched between the bushes, Bill looks pretty good, but, so would you or i. Slick Willy's administration is grossly overrated. He was mediocre at best and the continuous scandals make it, IMO, less than so.

DixieN

cornnifer wrote:

Whereas many of the differences are subtle:

i prefer his healthcare plan
i prefer his diplomacy ideas
i prefer his education ideas
i prefer his opposition to iraq from the giddyup and his plan to end it carefully and responsibly
i prefer his views on affordable college education
i prefer his "bottom up" approach
i prefer his emphasis on individual responsibility...
there is much more...

and none if it has to with the fact that he's black.

Most of those ideas are identical to Clintons. None of it may have to do with the fact he's Black. Your preferences are yours...but, I don't see where they come from. I do not prefer his health care plan. It will cost way more than Clinton's in the long run. Her plan is honest up front...you need to sign up, period. Somewhere. Just like with car insurance. You need this. Your state needs it. Your country needs it. If people can choose whether to sign up or not, many won't. I read a statistic that says that no voluntary plan will encompass more than 70% participation. That means 30% of everybody won't be covered. When they show up at the ER and their condition costs thousands to diagnose and treat...who's paying for that? It'll be you. At a much higher rate than if you build it in. Cheaper sounding is sometime just cheap...in the sense of being no bargain.

DixieN

bootlegger10 wrote:

Actually, there was a white candidate named John Edwards who was more Democratic and for the people than Obama and Hilary. He was ignored. I'm guessing because he was not black or a woman.

He ran on an "I"ll help the poor" platform, really. Who wants to really help the poor? Not many people. Plus, he was vilified for his expenses. He's a millionaire. Duh. Yeah, he spent big bucks on some stuff, but...so what? That means he can't want to help the poor? Apparently not. I liked Edwards. I would also have supported him for president. Honestly, I really like all the major candidates the Dems put up this time. Edwards would have been much more successful in another year.

LikeAnOcean

I think Obama would still be popular if he was 100% white. Probably even more so. He is a good intelligent speaker and has charisma..


It's not like being black helped out Al Sharpton.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

beachdweller wrote:

On another note, Republicans will get hammered in FL, it's there fault the votes aren't being counted, not the Dem's. Republican state government controlled government made the changes.

interested to know if thats true that floridians will go blue over it. any Floridians around? do you think this?

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, they are very different from Kucinich's. C'mon! Environment, Defense, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Education, Dept of Peace

I was thinking of making a thread with a link to ontheisssues so we could all compare candidates plans side by side. I'm a bit busy with something at the moment, so it will have to be later.

I just did a quick side by side comparison using ontheissues, and it looks like I'm right. They're not that far apart. Now, I'm a workday poster, so I'm just going by the VoteMatch Responses - but I do have them, literally, side by side on my screen right now.

So, let's see.
Abortion is a woman's right - Kucinich Favors, Obama Strongly Favors.
Require Hireng more women and minorities - both Strongly Favor.
Same sex domestic partnerships - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Teacher-led prayer in public schools - both Oppose
Death Penalty - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Mandatory Sentencing - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Absolute right to gun ownership - both Strongly Oppose
Federal Funcing for health coverage - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Privatize Social Security - both Strongly Oppose
School Vouchers - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama "no opinion" (not exactly accurate - more like a "wash" than "no opinion")
Replace Oil and Coal - both Strongly Favor
Drug use is immoral - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Allow churches to provide welfare services - Kucinich Opposes, Obama Favors (wow, an actual hard difference - and one I agree with Kucinich on).
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy - both Strongly Favor.
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Support and expand free trade - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Expand the armed forces - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Favors (another hard difference. I'm actually between the both of them on this one)
Stricter limits on campaign funds - Kucinich Favors, Obama Strongly Favors
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties - both Strongly Favor
U.S. out of Iraq - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors.

Result - Obama is an "80/20" hard core liberal, and Kucinich is a "100/10" hard core liberal. So, yeah, Kucinich is more of a liberal, but they're not all that far apart. Now, who can sell it?

RainDog

Oh, and to the topic of the thread. You can certainly say that "Obama is popular because he's black." But, if you do, expect to be called out on the hyper absurdity of it. I mean, seriously, think about the following statement:

"When it comes to presidential elections, the black man's the safe bet."

I mean, really?

DriftingByTheStorm

KDH12 wrote:

You say that Obama is only where he is because he is black....
[...]Don't get distracted by his skin color THAT IS WHAT CLINTON WANTS YOU TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. That is twice you've totaly misquoted me.
I said that the decisions made in presidential races by most americans are highly complex EMOTIONAL decisions, based much less on policy and issues than it is on some bullshit gut reaction, like, "does he feel trustworthy?" or, "does he look and sound 'presidential'?" ...

We have no scientific way of quantifying how much these subconscious processes affect these decisions, but i truly believe that a LOT of Americans subconsciously are affected by the, "Black EQUALS Change" mentality.

I even quoted a poster on this forum who goes to prove that to be true. Notice how you completely avoided that.

As far as what Hillary Clinton wants me to do?
You fail to grasp the fact that i think they are both lying sacks of shit.

:sigh:

callen

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How is it a bonus?

cause I get a good laugh....thats my bonus...selfish I realize.

DixieN

cornnifer wrote:

The fact that Monica blew Bill in the Oval office, though heinous, i was almost willing to write off, as you have, as his own personal business and no real concern of mine. It's the lying, perjuring, evidence tampering business i have a problem with.
Furthermore, there is a problem with comparative perception. Sandwhiched between the bushes, Bill looks pretty good, but, so would you or i. Slick Willy's administration is grossly overrated. He was mediocre at best and the continuous scandals make it, IMO, less than so.

Well, the lying isn't good...but, if someone came into your office and demanded to know if you were having an affair...if you were having one, you'd probably lie. I probably would...and I'm not much of a liar. It was a lie about sex. If it were a lie over something of actual substance, I wouldn't be quite so forgiving. People went very low to get Clinton. No one went after Kennedy, etc., (and there's teams worth of etcs on the cheating president thing) for the same type of behavior. People will lie to get sex and get out of the trouble having it often tends to cause.

DriftingByTheStorm

DixieN wrote:

It was a lie about sex. If it were a lie over something of actual substance, I wouldn't be quite so forgiving. People went very low to get Clinton.

I agree, screw the sex.
They should have gone after him on the drug smuggling\conspiracy to commit felony\felony weapons charges for his role as governor in the Mena\Iran Contra\Cocaine for Illegal Weapons debacle.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I just did a quick side by side comparison using ontheissues, and it looks like I'm right. They're not that far apart. Now, I'm a workday poster, so I'm just going by the VoteMatch Responses - but I do have them, literally, side by side on my screen right now.

So, let's see.
Abortion is a woman's right - Kucinich Favors, Obama Strongly Favors.
Require Hireng more women and minorities - both Strongly Favor.
Same sex domestic partnerships - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Teacher-led prayer in public schools - both Oppose
Death Penalty - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Mandatory Sentencing - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Absolute right to gun ownership - both Strongly Oppose
Federal Funcing for health coverage - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Privatize Social Security - both Strongly Oppose
School Vouchers - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama "no opinion" (not exactly accurate - more like a "wash" than "no opinion")
Replace Oil and Coal - both Strongly Favor
Drug use is immoral - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Allow churches to provide welfare services - Kucinich Opposes, Obama Favors (wow, an actual hard difference - and one I agree with Kucinich on).
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy - both Strongly Favor.
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors
Support and expand free trade - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Opposes
Expand the armed forces - Kucinich Strongly Opposes, Obama Favors (another hard difference. I'm actually between the both of them on this one)
Stricter limits on campaign funds - Kucinich Favors, Obama Strongly Favors
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties - both Strongly Favor
U.S. out of Iraq - Kucinich Strongly Favors, Obama Favors.

Result - Obama is an "80/20" hard core liberal, and Kucinich is a "100/10" hard core liberal. So, yeah, Kucinich is more of a liberal, but they're not all that far apart. Now, who can sell it?

But that says nothing to actual policy plans....wherein I have a problem with Obama's weak plans especially in healthcare, military/defense funding, Iraq, freetrade and the environment. And that he voted to reenact the patriot act and fund the war...two things that he claims to be so against.

Money can sell it. And that says jack shit about the product being sold....I'm sure you're aware. So sad our democracy bolis down to marketing for you. You might say that's just how america is but that doesn't mean I'm going to be part of that huge problem. Hitler could sell some shit, too but it really doesn't make a strong case for me as far as doing what's right goes.