He doesn't have to- they already are. That's how Trig got here, and likely Palin herself. Why does it matter to you how he wins? You are supporting him along with the racists. I see no reason for you to be so dismissive of a group that shares your views in every other aspect of this election (assuming you yourself are not a racist). What the ******** are you smoking? The racists, however many or few they number, are McCain supporters, period. There are, admittedly, some supporters of Senator Obama who are used to defending themselves against racists, but they themselves are not racist, as they have no effective power to exert over White individuals or White culture as a whole. Learn. Type. In that order.
Racist Democrats who supported Hillary (or Edwards) in the primary and are crossing over in the general for no reason other than to vote against the n**ger share my views about what exactly?? What about non-racist Democrats who didn't support Obama in the primary but do support him now?? Were they racists back when they were voting against Obama simply because they voted for the same candidate as racists?? And if so, I suppose they became miraculously absolved of their racism when the candidates they supported and they took up behind Obama?? So black people can't be racists?? There's a word I'm trying to think of that describes statements like that...what is it...damn, I can't think of it... If Obama was white and McCain was half-black, I'd still be voting for McCain. You on the other hand would either be voting for McCain for no reason other than his race, or screaming about how he's a race traitor.
Those aren't the voters you were referring to, and we both know it. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend you were talking about Hillary (or Edwards) crossovers. Raise the level of discourse rather than lower it, Alex. What of them? No and Not Applicable. The word is fact (three, four posts until some asscrack shows up to call it an opinion and slime Dr. Welsing, but whatever). True racism involves not just a belief, but an ability to turn that belief into action that affects the race/culture the person feels is inferior. You disagree, please deal without making your opinion known, because I don't care. I never said anything about you being racist. Meth and moonshine on their own are bad enough- mixing them isn't an example of two negatives making a positive. We've proven for generations that we were willing to vote for White folks. Marched, bled, fought, wasted time in church, and were murdered so we could vote for White folks. Have voted for White folks all our lives. I've pretty much always voted a straight Dem ticket, so why in your lipless, pointy-nosed God's name you think I'd vote for Senator Obama simply because of his color escapes me. Maybe you can explain in your next post. Sober up before you try, tho- I really don't have time to teach you the same shit four or five times in a row.
Of course it's who I'm referring to. People who would normally vote Democratic, but are voting Republican because the Democratic candidate is black. Racist Republicans would vote Republican anyway. So it was OK to vote for Hillary or Edwards against Obama even though some of the people who did so were racists, but it's not OK to vote for McCain against Obama simply because some of the people who do so are racists?? The men who ran the apartheid system in South Africa no longer have that ability. Are they no longer racists?? So in other words you'd be calling him a race traitor, just as you've referred to numerous other minority Republicans and conservatives on this board. Oh yeah, the bolded part....really?? I mean, I couldn't care less, but to lecture others about racism and then turn around and write crap like that...
Okay, whatever. There aen't going to be that many Dems who cross over. The Hawwiet Chwistians aren't as numerous as Faux Noise wants you to think. But I was responding to a poster who said he hoped racists wouldn't decide the election. I asked that poster why, because the GOP has had far more racists on its side than Dems since before the Southern Strategy (again, the Angry White Woman group ain't that big, and I'd bet a lot of them were Reeps disguised as disgruntled Hillaryites anyhow), and also because, frankly, you need those racists to put McCain in office. You replace "Barack Obama" with "Insert European language name here___________", half-Black with White and "Kenya" with "Insert European nation here_______", the GOP gets beat down even if Sarah Palin can tie a knot in a cherry stem with her toes. You need help. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it at all. Read my post again. They are still White. The line doesn't stop at national borders, man. You're still putting words in my mouth. I bet I've voted for a hell of a lot higher percentage of White boys than you have voted for Black men. I said it because that's how a lot of White people envision both God and Jesus. I really shouldn't have to tell you that.
McCain already has, pander to the racists, remember the flag issue? http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/04/18/mccain/index.html Why on earth would you want McCain to win, It would just be four more years of Bush policies. Just once, I would like for somebody who supports McCain to give 5 reasons why they support McCain. Not the talking heads points but real reasons and facts to back up those reasons, no bullshit, just well thought out reasons why McCain should be President.Not "he will cut my taxes, strong on the war bullshit" But real reasons with real facts.
This is the same stupid argument Hillary supporters used during the primary. Just because exit polls mean I can prove that racists pushed Hillary over the top in the Ohio primary doesn't mean that all Hillary voters are racist, nor that the candidate is racist (even if her campaign was willing to use some classic "Southern Strategy" dogwhistles). It just meant that racism was having a real, measurable, and significant impact on the results of the election. I'm pretty sure that if it had an effect on the Democratic primary - the party that has done the most for minorities in the past 70 years - then it'll probably have a bigger effect in the general amongst independents.
As I see it, there are 3 groups of people who voted Democratic in the primaries but will vote for McCain. In no particular order (in fact, I suspect the last group is the largest and could be quite sizable): 1. White racists 2. Women who are brought over by Palin 3. Moderates who bought Hillary's lies about being a moderate herself, and are closer ideologically to McCain than to Obama Actually, I forgot a 4th group, although they might not count since they aren't really Democrats--Republicans from states whose primaries were held long after McCain had the nomination locked up, and crossed over to affect the Democratic primary. I am actually a member of this group myself (currently registered as a Democrat) and would have voted for Obama had the Pennsylvania Democratic Party (which is completely dominated by the Clintons and their cronies) seen fit to get my absentee ballot to me sooner than a day before the election. That poster was me. Am I wrong for wanting my candidate to win by a large enough margin that the votes of racists don't push him over the top?? I realize a lot of racists are going to vote for my candidate; it is what it is. One of the good things to come from this election, however, is that it's smacked everyone in the face with the reality that white racism is by no means the reserve of Republicans and conservatives. If it was, those racist votes wouldn't be much of a swing in this election as they'd all be voting for the Republican even if his opponent was white. I also disagree with your last point. It's been 32 years since a Democrat not named Clinton has won a Presidential election. All of those guys up to now where white. Granted, this is not a normal election and the GOP is about as unpopular as it's been, well, since 1976. But I don't think McCain needs the votes of racist to win. I sincerely hope he wins by enough that they don't matter. My mistake, but it sure seemed like that's what you were saying a few posts back. Dude, your entire premise is ludicrous. If you look down on people of other races, you're a racist, period. Whether or not you can actually do anything about it makes no difference. You've said that on these very boards--not sure if you've used that exact phrase, but you've used ones like it. Probably, but I did vote for I believe the only black major party candidate to run in an election I've participated in (Lynn Swann). Obama would've made it 1.5/1.5; as I said earlier, you can thank the Pennsylvania Democratic Party for that.
I agree with you. I was just pointing out that you can't say that voting for McCain alongside racists makes you a racist yourself (as I thought Auria was saying), unless you're willing to say the same about Hillary supporters. I don't disagree. As I said, I'm hoping McCain wins by enough of a margin that racist votes aren't the deciding factor.
How many black Bundestag members are there? And Bundeskabinett members? Barack Obama would have no chance at becoming president/prime minister in any of Europe's major democracies. Just by becoming the dems' candidate, he has achieved more than any person of color could hope to achieve in Europe, sadly.
So, what do white racists hope to gain by preferring McCain over Obama? That is, if racism is only about having and exerting power over the minority, what sort of "axe" would the white racist hope to ascertain? If, however, race does not involve having and exerting power over a minority and is simply an exercise in discrimination due to prejudice, then how do we detect that? By the numbers? If so, how can it be explained that 90 plus percent of black voters male and female intend to vote for Obama?
But that doesn't have anything to do with race. I don't think that anybody in Germany (except for a few right-wing die-hards) would have a problem with a competent black politician... I don't share your opinion. I bet he'd be very well accepted in countries like GB, Germany, France or Holland. Don't know about Belgium, though... Have a nice day.
Exit polling: "Was the race of the candidate a factor in your vote: Y/N" There are some folks who are voting for Obama just because he's a black man. However, it's probably not that large of a number; after all, African Americans voted for Kerry 88% of the time. So it might have something to do with the fact that Democrats better address the needs and desires of the African-American community.
You cannot with a straight face claim that a black man has a chance at becoming your head of state when none are currently represented in both your legislative and executive branch of government. As for the other examples you give, Holland is probably the European democracy most accepting of minorities and even they disallowed a man of North-African descent a cabinet minister-post (Ahmed Aboutaleb, in case you're interested in the details, he eventually had to settle for a less important secretary post instead). Your tone seems to suggest that my realism when it comes to a minority candidate's chances in Europe also entails a rejection of said minority candidates. This is not the case. I'm just saying out loud what most other Europeans refuse to admit. Namely that we're still lightyears behind the US in terms of the representation of minorities in all levels and branches of government. I do believe some European countries do better than the US when it comes to the representation of women though. But that's another matter entirely.
I totally disagree. If he'd be at the top of a party, he would be electable and possibly elected, but in order to get there in a German party you have to do a lot of work at the bottom, and he'd be stuck there because the big parties are quite conservaties when it comes to stuff like that. Only relevant party I could see it happen would be the greens and die Linke, and he wouldn't have a chance on becoming chancellor. The greens are afaik the first party to send someone of Turkish decent to the Bundestag. To be fair though, I think it could be changing if there were more blacks in Germany. There are Turks in our legislative bodies.
The thing is, if McCain had been half-black, he would never have had a daddy and a granddaddy who were admirals who could get him into the Naval Academy. And he would have washed out at a couple of other steps along the way, too. Except for you.
Probably true (I'm not sure if McCain did well enough in HS that he could've gotten in on his own), but not at all relevant to the hypothetical point I was making
Um, actually, it's COMPLETELY relevant to your point. Racism is embedded very, very, very deeply into America. It's easy to fool yourself into only seeing the surface. (Especially when you're a 22 year old conservative college student, but I digress.)
Huh?? Relevant to the wider point at large, maybe, but all I was saying with that comment was that I would still be voting for McCain if he was half-black. It was purely hypothetical. I have, in fact, voted for black conservatives before (Lynn Swann).
Maybe I should be ashamed of this, but I actually voted for Jesse Ventura in 1998. Mostly because the Dems were running a Pub-in-trade (Skip Humphrey) against a complete ******** in Norm Coleman. I won't vote for a Pub. Ventura actually wasn't a bad governor, relatively speaking. He's just such a blowhard, he never was taken seriously. (I have to admire the fact that he campaigned for Kinky Friedman, though. )
And voted against the most powerful Eagles fan in the world (even as Governor Rendell continues to appear on the local Comcast SportsNet's Eagles post-game show every single Sunday, which I think is f**king awesome--and there's zero doubt in my mind he'd continue to do it even if he was VP or President--I've also met Rendell and he's an awesome guy). I did feel a little dirty.