Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Where do you get these "mostly" stats?-AC
"whites have been voting for whites partly/mostly cause of skin color."
stats? What does this statement that you quoted me on with this question, have to do with stats.
My statement is true. Are you saying that when 100% of white people that vote don't look at skin color either at least partly or mostly?
Originally posted by BackFireI don't get why they shoot JFK and LIncoln, but not Bush.
Yep, I like Obama, I voted for him and was happy to do so. His skin color was not even a factor.I don't think his skin color really matters to most people these days, really.
Could he be assassinated? Yes, all it takes is one nut to do it, any president could be assassinated, I don't see that as a valid reason to not vote for him.
So, I think if he wins, people will be fine with it. And most people who are against him will be against him because they disagree with his stances, rather than disagreeing with his color.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"whites have been voting for whites partly/mostly cause of skin color."stats? What does this statement that you quoted me on with this question, have to do with stats.
My statement is true. Are you saying that when 100% of white people that vote don't look at skin color either at least partly or mostly?
how many presidential and party candidates for republican and democrat have been non whites over the last say...10 elections?
Originally posted by jaden101
how many presidential and party candidates for republican and democrat have been non whites over the last say...10 elections?
A small percentage. (of which have ever been elected probably in part due to skin color.)
Also one of the reasons blacks don't really run for the highest offices is because they know whites won't vote for them cause of skin color. A run would be a lost cause; futile. Even if the candidate has all the values they have.
My only reason for supporting obama at this point (re: now that Paul is out, though I have a soft spot for Nader) would be because he is black.
Straight up, a black president, while not necessarily more qualified for anything domestic, will do more for America's international image as a nation run by old white men than anything else, and could possibly be a better face to approach mid-east and african problems.
That being said, Obama imho has no real qualities that distinguish him from "white" candidates. He is funded by the same corporations, has the same interests, and honestly seems apathetic toward addressing the messy inner city and "black" issues. For instance, though I have heard very little of his speeches (so prove me wrong please), I have yet to hear him address the war on drugs.
Originally posted by inimalist
My only reason for supporting obama at this point (re: now that Paul is out, though I have a soft spot for Nader) would be because he is black.Straight up, a black president, while not necessarily more qualified for anything domestic, will do more for America's international image as a nation run by old white men than anything else, and could possibly be a better face to approach mid-east and african problems.
That being said, Obama imho has no real qualities that distinguish him from "white" candidates. He is funded by the same corporations, has the same interests, and honestly seems apathetic toward addressing the messy inner city and "black" issues. For instance, though I have heard very little of his speeches (so prove me wrong please), I have yet to hear him address the war on drugs.
Originally posted by BigRed
Yea, but Obama won't do much for that "image" when he bankrupts America.
I think anyone who calls American Democrats socialist or commies pretty much has no grasp of international politics or political philosophy.
Obama, in Canada, would be a far right of center candidate, as well as in most of Europe.