Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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?
You need to prove they partly OR mostly do (Partly and mostly are different), because that's a big claim.
You can't just say "It's true.".
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You need to prove they partly OR mostly do (Partly and mostly are different), because that's a big claim.You can't just say "It's true.".
-AC
There is no way that 100% of all white people that vote, which are in the millions, do not consider, at least subconciously, skin color. If anything else it's very highly unlikely to not likely at all.
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthI'd say the only reason white people vote for white candidates is because they're usually the only ones running.
I didn't say that was the reason wholly. I said it's partly to mostly the reason. Of course other factors are considered, it's just that that factor may be considered to when voting.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
There is no way that 100% of all white people that vote, which are in the millions, do not consider, at least subconciously, skin color. If anything else it's very highly unlikely to not likely at all.
You said that ALL white people vote mostly due to skin colour.
You never said "Somewhere in there, it's a factor, at least subconsciously, for some people.".
You said "whites mostly" vote due to skin colour.
You can either retract your ridiculous claim or prove it true.
-AC
Originally posted by StrangeloveYet, Obama was the only black person running and is beating the other white people. The more obvious assumption is that America is in favour of black presidents.
I'd say the only reason white people vote for white candidates is because they're usually the only ones running.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
Did I say anything about Obama's political idealogies or leanings or anything remotely close? I didn't even mention Democrats, much less them being socialist or commies.
On a socialist scale. From 1 being true socialism to 10 not really socialism. I'd say we are about a 6 or 7. Canada and those places are close to a 4 or 5 maybe.
Obama without a doubt would implement more social programs, extend government more and spend more. So yes, that will bankrupt America. I could care less if he calls himself liberal, socialists or a communist.
But it be flawed to not think the Democrats of today are not socialist leaning or in some facet socialist. They certainly aren't liberals of the past.
Originally posted by chithappens
... What the hell are you talking about? The country is already in some crazy debt and that had nothing to do with a Democrat in the oval office.
Obama is going (anybody really -- but since Obama is most likely to get in the WH) to bankrupt America even more (we are already are bankrupt) with his policies.
And actually yea it has to a lot. Democrats AND Republicans both have bankrupted this Nation. It hasn't just been Republicans.
Originally posted by BigRed
Whoa buddy.Did I say anything about Obama's political idealogies or leanings or anything remotely close? I didn't even mention Democrats, much less them being socialist or commies.
On a socialist scale. From 1 being true socialism to 10 not really socialism. I'd say we are about a 6 or 7. Canada and those places are close to a 4 or 5 maybe.
Obama without a doubt would implement more social programs, extend government more and spend more. So yes, that will bankrupt America. I could care less if he calls himself liberal, socialists or a communist.
But it be flawed to not think the Democrats of today are not socialist leaning or in some facet socialist. They certainly aren't liberals of the past.
what policy does obama have that would remove the market from the economy and replace it with government control? I'll admit I haven't seen him speak much, but his policies with health and education do not seem to expand government powers... He talks very positively about the free market...
And no, on a global scale, I do not think it is flawed to say the democrats are not socialist. They might be progressive... But even then they would lag behind every single progressive movement in the world. To be honest, I don't think either party has enough philosophical perspective to be called anything, most just change their rhetoric in order to monopolize certain blocks of voters.
But ya, maybe I jumped the gun, but I wanted to circumvent that argument before it could even be made.