The informed voter

Gato_Solo said:
I've given you more than enough chances to actually come up with an intelligent conversation that doesn't resort to baiting, and you've yet to rise to the occasion. Frankly, I don't know who's worse...you, for drivel like that, or spike because he's spike.
Click to expand...

And yet in your reply you hypocritically don't say anything intelligent and resort to baiting. I guess that makes you the worst.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Nice to see you haven't lost your grasp of the inane comment. When I want to address you, I'll quote you, or call you out. Now go back and read where I got that from and stop being silly.
Click to expand...

if the election were held among whites ONLY, obama would not have won. of course there were a bunch of whites that voted for obama. but that does not change the numbers.

whatever bubble of mine you were attempting to burst never existed.

back to the windmills, quixote.
 
Everybody who voted for anybody BECAUSE of thier race is a racist.

Everybody whose main, or even top 10, reason for voting for anybody was their race is stupid.
 
2minkey said:
if the election were held among whites ONLY, obama would not have won. of course there were a bunch of whites that voted for obama. but that does not change the numbers.

whatever bubble of mine you were attempting to burst never existed.

back to the windmills, quixote.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're bubble remains intact...and you think thats a good thing. If every black and hispanic in the US...legal, or course, voted for Obama, he wouldn't have won. As it stands...75% of 15% is not that 'vast', either...assuming that those numbers are correct. What galls me most is that most people assume that the 'vast majority' of blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black. Since race is not an option used in identifying a voter with his/her vote, we must rely on those pesky exit polls. Suppose the 'vast majority' of blacks and hispanics did NOT vote for Obama...just a simple majority. That would mean that a 'vast majority' of whites voted Obama in, and the black and hispanic voters were...once again...marginal to the victor.

Was that a 'pop' I just heard?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Once again, you're bubble remains intact...and you think thats a good thing. If every black and hispanic in the US...legal, or course, voted for Obama, he wouldn't have won. As it stands...75% of 15% is not that 'vast', either...assuming that those numbers are correct. What galls me most is that most people assume that the 'vast majority' of blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black. Since race is not an option used in identifying a voter with his/her vote, we must rely on those pesky exit polls. Suppose the 'vast majority' of blacks and hispanics did NOT vote for Obama...just a simple majority. That would mean that a 'vast majority' of whites voted Obama in, and the black and hispanic voters were...once again...marginal to the victor.

Was that a 'pop' I just heard?
Click to expand...

no, that was not. but feel free to continue to spew reams of obviousness.
 
Gato_Solo said:
What galls me most is that most people assume that the 'vast majority' of blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black.
Click to expand...

You don't find it suspicious when a vast majority of those who are black were at least purporting to support Obama. Perhaps it was the (D) following his name, perhaps not. It's actually understandable...the first in 250 years, but that doesn't change the racism involved. Again, I'm not saying that ALL members of the black community supported him but the evidence is overwhelming that race was a huge factor.
 
suspicious? what? suspicious is an odd word to use here. we should be suspicious because a group of people tend to support someone that has goals, in a broad sense, more aligned with their own than the other candidate? are you also suspicious of labor unions for the same reason? (go ahead and make some clever crack about unions, but then please do proceed to answer the question as it's been asked.)
 
Go to post 66 & replace union for race.

Why is it an odd word? It fits quite well in it's syntax.
 
so if someone voted a certain way because of likely benefit stemming from their union affiliation they are, um, unionist? that they, as a member of organized labor, are voting in a way that most likely will favor organized labor makes them, wait, what, again?

how horrible and irrational!

well gotta go see my optometrist now. the brilliance in this thread has blinded me. and dad always said it'd be from wanking...
 
Gonz said:
You don't find it suspicious when a vast majority of those who are black were at least purporting to support Obama. Perhaps it was the (D) following his name, perhaps not. It's actually understandable...the first in 250 years, but that doesn't change the racism involved. Again, I'm not saying that ALL members of the black community supported him but the evidence is overwhelming that race was a huge factor.
Click to expand...

Blacks mostly tend to go for democrats. There may have been a larger effect this time but I haven't looked at the numbers. I would imagine it was no bigger than the amount of whites that didn't vote for him because of race.
 
who is? why? what? maybe you should start declaring this "socialist" too. and "muslim terrorist" while you're at it. perhaps then it will all make sense.

:rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top