Dvergar wrote:
Usdk wrote:
How so? Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite over a no-name from chicago.
So because she was the favorite BEFORE THE CAMPAIGNING she only lost because her opponent was black? Man the shit you guys will believe just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
The more you keep pushing this, the clearer it becomes. You're saying he's only the president, only winning because he's black. Not because he ran a better campaign, not because he was a better candidate, but because of the color of his skin. That's racism.
While there were several other factors leading up to the actual presidential election that influence the outcome, Obama never would have made it beyond the democrat primary if not for the color of his skin. That isn't "racist thinking," that's just an admission of the dynamics of the election. The democrat base relies heavily on the black vote in national elections, as the black community generally gives over 90% of it's vote to any given democrat candidate. Put that large voting bloc together with some 'white guilt,' and Hilary is out of the running in the primary. That is not to say Hilary was a strong candidate. Had she won the nomination, it would have been a much tighter race in the presidential election. However, the idea that some guy who was only known for giving a speech and winning an incredibly easy senate race would have beat a candidate as strong for Hilary if not for the factor of race is laughable.
I'd like to have the 'what if' machine from Futurama so we could see how things would have played out had the republican party nominated someone other than McCain. The republican base was not fond of McCain, especially after the "gang of 14" debacle, and there wasn't a strong turn-out in support of him. Despite some assertions that republican voters are all bigot/racist/sexist/homophobes, you should note they didn't turn out to vote
against President Obama, either. One local republican I spoke with put it this way: "Why should I vote for McCain when what he and Obama are for only differ by a matter of degrees? At least if Obama wins, he and the democrats get the credit for screwing things up."
Zaryi, someone should tell that guy you don't get to complain about the treatment of "hyphenated Americans" when you're one of the people insisting on hyphenation. His argument starts losing merit he explains that how group "X" is viewed/treated is only a result of group "Y," which in this case is "the moneyed interest." The whole thing is little more than dividing America into little groups and declaring one of more of them virtuous while painting those with competing views/interest as the left hand of the devil. If a republican/conservative had written that column about President Obama, the "reprehensible people" list would include a former domestic terrorist...which would be equally relevant. It's easy to take a large group, find some bad apples, and argue that the worst among the group are indicative of the whole.
Birthers are idiots, but after getting LOLTROLLED by Donald Trump, President Obama isn't looking much brighter. You can shout "racism" until your lungs bleed, but I think you're only doing that because it's easier than admitting Obama let himself get rolled.
Your Pal,
Jubber
