THX_1138 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 i never put a sneaky victory past the republicans... they have the most elaborate legal team not to mention they have their party representatives in control of the election commissions in a few of the most pivotal battle ground states... however, if the republicans win, which i am prepared for but dont expect, then you can be certain that some amount of voter fraud has occured. for instance, thanks to people such as karl rove, voters must now present an ID in order to cast a vote, thereby discriminating against those without a picture ID such as low income families or those who do not have a steady street address...
THX_1138 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 AA's have always voted Democrats by around 80/20, now they are for Obama around 90/10.. Considering that the AA's are only around 15-20% of the population, it's not a big affect.. And you wouldn't imagine that they'd be voting for Obama just 'coz he inspires them do u ? You'd consider their vote racist ? How about the latinos voting for the black guy ? Their margin is around 70-30 right now in most swing states.. That racist too ? There's an important distinction that I think you are probably missing. Obama inspires most minorities in a positive way, and that's why they vote for him. He shows them that anything is possible in USA. As opposed to those that dont vote for Obama, even though they like his ideas, just because he is black and don't want to be governed by a black dude. That is tapping into a negative human emotion considering the amount of gerrymandering that occurs in states with large black populations, their perceived vote for obama has been considerably undermined... and this did not occur yesterday, it has been going on for ages.
Brainfade Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 AA's have always voted Democrats by around 80/20, now they are for Obama around 90/10.. Considering that the AA's are only around 15-20% of the population, it's not a big affect.. And you wouldn't imagine that they'd be voting for Obama just 'coz he inspires them do u ? You'd consider their vote racist ? How about the latinos voting for the black guy ? Their margin is around 70-30 right now in most swing states.. That racist too ? Voting for someone for the main reason that they belong to a particular race is racist. Spin it any which way you would like. There's an important distinction that I think you are probably missing. Obama inspires most minorities in a positive way, and that's why they vote for him. He shows them that anything is possible in USA. As opposed to those that dont vote for Obama, even though they like his ideas, just because he is black and don't want to be governed by a black dude. That is tapping into a negative human emotion I am specifically addressing the subset of black people who will vote for Obama only because he is black (the ones I called racist) and the subset of white people who will vote for McCain only because he is not black (rednecks). You decided to extrapolate that to mean all black people. On the other hand, you fail to consider the possibility that a majority of white people who vote for McCain do so because they agree with his policies. Regardless, emotions should not matter (they do, but they should not). The question you ask yourself is this: "Does this guy have the vision AND the proven ability to govern?" If the answer is yes - you vote for him, regardless of the color of his skin. It is not about creating history, it is not about positive or negative emotions. It is not about electing someone because you want to make a statement. You are not electing the prom king - you are electing someone who will have a chance to shape the future of a country. And from that viewpoint, neither of these candidates deserve our vote.
Brainfade Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Since you guys want to know what 'White' Americans think about Obama, I would like to share a conversation I had with American colleague ( yes, he's white). Every time I have talked with him about the elections, he's always been pro-Obama. There's a definite sense of disgust about the previous 8 years of Republican rule. With respect to yesterday's debate, he told me that McCain was all about taking jabs at Obama and saying negative things about him. Obama had more constructive answers to give about the problems Americans are facing. He said that McCain indulged in sniper like tactics in yesterday's debate and some of the things he said and did 'were not Presidential' When I mentioned to think that its actually a scary thought to think that someone like Sarah Palin could become the most powerful person in the world, not just of America, he agreed with me and said 'Generally, you refer to the American President as the leader of the free world. Its definitely scary to think that a novice like Palin can actually become the President'. The impression that I get from talking to people is, most of them are just plain fed up with the state of the economy, high fuel prices etc. They're desperate for change and they dont seem to think McCain can give that change. And mind you, these are all well to do, middle-class to upper middle class individuals. If they feel nervous about the state of the economy, imagine what the average plumber must be feeling. And oh btw, not once did he even mention about Obama being black. Good post. Anecdotal, but very telling. Thanks for posting this.
veer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 McCain's biggest mistake was appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate.. otherwise I would have voted for McCain.. its scary to watch Palin's interviews and debates .. McCain is not good at delivering speaches but his record is far better than Obama... Obama talks a lot .. and plus, if Obama wins thats gonna be democratic president, house and senate.. total dominance
varun Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Voting for someone for the main reason that they belong to a particular race is racist. Spin it any which way you would like. I agree, that an affinity towards people of your own race, region, religion could be defined as racism, regionism, religionism respectively, but to hate someone from another race, region, or religion is what gives these terms a bad name than just being drawn towards someone from the same background as you. Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=39c3f3ee-24f8-4126-9ea8-f8b18ef1c2d1 It is not about creating history, it is not about positive or negative emotions. This is where we differ I think. After years of republican one-sightedness, slandering, negativity and personal attacks, a positive message from the white house can do wonders for the image of the country not just in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of americans themselves. A leader's main job is to inspire the good in people and to make them seek a cause bigger than themselves. And from that viewpoint, neither of these candidates deserve our vote.I think you should speak only for yourself here. Just curious, how do you like Barr ? :D
Brainfade Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I agree' date=' that an affinity towards people of your own race, region, religion could be defined as racism, regionism, religionism respectively, but to [b']hate someone from another race, region, or religion is what gives these terms a bad name than just being drawn towards someone from the same background as you. Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=39c3f3ee-24f8-4126-9ea8-f8b18ef1c2d1 I agree with what you are saying about hatred. But, one would be naive to say that hatred is a one-way street. I give you Reverend Wright. This is where we differ I think. After years of republican one-sightedness, slandering, negativity and personal attacks, a positive message from the white house can do wonders for the image of the country not just in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of americans themselves. A leader's main job is to inspire the good in people and to make them seek a cause bigger than themselves. You're right - here's where we disagree. The job of a President is to govern, not inspire. From that perspective, I feel PVNR and Manmohan are better PMs than the charismatic Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi were. The President should make good decisions for national security and the economy, cut government spending, appoint the right people to do their job and get the heck out of the way. Inspiration should come from parents, peers, teachers (!), and spiritual leaders, not political leaders. Just curious, how do you like Barr ? :D Don't know much about him. I am an out-and-out Ron Paul guy. If I had a vote, I'd write his name in. Before I quit this thread, I'd like to make one last comment - I find the extreme "one-sidedness" of this board rather strange. When one points out McCain's/Palin's flaws, it draws applause. When Obama's flaws are pointed out (especially the repeated evidence of his rhetoric vs. voting record), there is either silence or derision. When I purposefully attributed his acceptance of off-shore drilling to Palin, people jumped on Palin. But, when real source of that view was pointed out - the silence was deafening.
THX_1138 Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Voting for someone for the main reason that they belong to a particular race is racist. Spin it any which way you would like. I am specifically addressing the subset of black people who will vote for Obama only because he is black (the ones I called racist) and the subset of white people who will vote for McCain only because he is not black (rednecks). You decided to extrapolate that to mean all black people. On the other hand, you fail to consider the possibility that a majority of white people who vote for McCain do so because they agree with his policies. Regardless, emotions should not matter (they do, but they should not). The question you ask yourself is this: "Does this guy have the vision AND the proven ability to govern?" If the answer is yes - you vote for him, regardless of the color of his skin. It is not about creating history, it is not about positive or negative emotions. It is not about electing someone because you want to make a statement. You are not electing the prom king - you are electing someone who will have a chance to shape the future of a country. And from that viewpoint, neither of these candidates deserve our vote. which would explain why we have such incredible black leadership hailing from the south... if people are voting for obama because he is black, then so they must... it is about time a black man received his dues. and considering how overwhelmingly educated, learned and qualified he is, he ought to be the next president. you can go crawl into a corner and cry come november 4, but till then post all the puerile you must, for i expect little else from you.
THX_1138 Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Voting for someone for the main reason that they belong to a particular race is racist. Spin it any which way you would like. I am specifically addressing the subset of black people who will vote for Obama only because he is black (the ones I called racist) and the subset of white people who will vote for McCain only because he is not black (rednecks). You decided to extrapolate that to mean all black people. On the other hand, you fail to consider the possibility that a majority of white people who vote for McCain do so because they agree with his policies. Regardless, emotions should not matter (they do, but they should not). The question you ask yourself is this: "Does this guy have the vision AND the proven ability to govern?" If the answer is yes - you vote for him, regardless of the color of his skin. It is not about creating history, it is not about positive or negative emotions. It is not about electing someone because you want to make a statement. You are not electing the prom king - you are electing someone who will have a chance to shape the future of a country. And from that viewpoint, neither of these candidates deserve our vote. specifically his anti arab foreign and anti black social policies.
Brainfade Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 which would explain why we have such incredible black leadership hailing from the south... if people are voting for obama because he is black, then so they must... it is about time a black man received his dues. and considering how overwhelmingly educated, learned and qualified he is, he ought to be the next president. you can go crawl into a corner and cry come november 4, but till then post all the puerile you must, for i expect little else from you. A bit tipsy, are we?
THX_1138 Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 A bit tipsy' date=' are we?[/quote'] *Edited*
Lurker Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 *Edited* Thats totally unfair THX. There is no need for that kind of comment, and as much as I know I am sure you know it very well. CricAddicts point of view may be different to yours, as are they to mine, but he has never been anything but civil, when when I have many of us have pushed his buttons a little bit( admit it liberals can be as vocal as conservatives in their critique). What I like about him is that he happens to have meat in his arguments, and we should go after those rather than slandering him surely.
Dhondy Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 THX, you are a blithering idiot for picking on the most harmless, non-offensive chap around and abusing his family needlessly. Who do you think you are? Corleone? Lay off the aggro, kid. Stick to your grandiose tales of humpin' the office ugly Betty over the photocopier and leave decent posters like Cricaddict alone. Idiot.
Ram Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 One more unprovoked abuse from THX and he is staring at a ban.
vroomfondel Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 obama wins colin powell nomination (token black republican in the room). also, brah raised $150m in september. wow... (yes, he totally reneged on his promise to use 'public financing', nobody seems to bring that up anymore though).
Lurker Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 obama wins colin powell nomination (token black republican in the room). also, brah raised $150m in september. wow... (yes, he totally reneged on his promise to use 'public financing', nobody seems to bring that up anymore though). That has started to worry me a bit. $150m in just one month?? Thats insane. If you do the math this means 1.8 billion over a year, atleast 1 billion by conservative estimate. Thats akin to buying your way to the White House. There needs to be some kind of check, although I would concede I have no clue on how that can be done. That aside I have started to enjoy Conservative anxiety as to how it is entirely possible that White house, Senate and Congress are all going to go Democrat Party way. Republicans are shouting foul play without realizing it is their stupid policies that has made this shift anyway! What is expected of a US citizen? That they will reward Bush and Republicans for their failed policies?? I hope this teaches a lesson of humility of doing things right when a party gets into power(holds true for Democrat as well). xxx
vroomfondel Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 you know that he totally lied about campaign finance right? Well, lied may be too strong, but made false (stupid) promises. He first said that if his opponent used public funds (capped at $84.1m), then he too would use only public funds. It was obviously in Grampa's interests to use a capped funding source, so he did. And it totally wasn't in Barak's interest, so he conveniently forgot that part of the promise. The A-rab's excuse is as follows: Public Financing is broken. $84.1m cap on direct spending by a candidate, but no cap on indirect 'support groups', a la Swiftboat attention-seekers against Kerry. So, Barak says, " I think it's more democratic to do it the way I happen to get more money." Hota hai, boy's a politician. I'm really surprised McCain hasn't hammered him on that. I think he could have scored big points. At least I think it's the most valid criticism of Barak's actions so far. Instead he and that blow-up doll of a Veep are talking about Ayers...
varun Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 That has started to worry me a bit. $150m in just one month?? Thats insane. If you do the math this means 1.8 billion over a year, atleast 1 billion by conservative estimate. Thats akin to buying your way to the White House. There needs to be some kind of check, although I would concede I have no clue on how that can be done. xxx Well there are checks there. Max $2300 per person right ? But hey if a lot of ppl believe in him enough that they pay him (3.1 million donors so far !!! .. average of $90 or somethin per donor), what can u do.
Lurker Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 I'm really surprised McCain hasn't hammered him on that. I think he could have scored big points. At least I think it's the most valid criticism of Barak's actions so far. Instead he and that blow-up doll of a Veep are talking about Ayers... I am not much surprised by McCain dragging his feet on this issue. McCain of 2000 would have raised it, not this elderly gentleman who is running. This person-who-goes-by-name-McCain is following the usual Republican ideology of creating fear. So Bill Ayers gets Prime Time importance because "Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist who is against the Great United States". So Joe the Plumber gets Prime Time because "People like Joe made USA great and if not supported will end United States as a nation we know". Campaign reform has nothing to do with fear factor and so Republican think tank can not sell it to their die-hard supporters. That said McCain has been making some comments on this lately. Unfortunately he has made all of these comments on FOX, which only Republicans watch anyway. xxx
Lurker Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 Well there are checks there. Max $2300 per person right ? But hey if a lot of ppl believe in him enough that they pay him (3.1 million donors so far !!! .. average of $90 or somethin per donor), what can u do. Varun, Obama's case is quite similar to Ron Paul(or that of Howard Dean in 2004) in that he has generated a lot of donation via Internet. Do you remember how Ron Paul generated millions? Isnt it a fair argument to say what happened to those millions? Did Ron just pocket it?? Same with Obama. What is he gonna do with all these money?? If at the end he has an income of say 1.5 billion(just some random numbers) while his expenditure is 1 billion, what happens to almost 500 million? Of course my other gripe is how this is effectively showing that a person who can not generate millions doesnt stand a chance in modern elections.
Recommended Posts