| SeriousWB said: Firstly, would be great to see atleast some kind of basis for "a vast majority of support from Obama's black backers seem to originate from the color of the mans skin, and not his policies" business rather than just what you think. I could just say that those who voted for Hilary were doing so purely because she was the non-black choice, and it would be equally baseless. I could also say all females were voting for her based on her gender.
|
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Obama drew more than 90 percent of the vote among Pennsylvania's black voters, who are heavily concentrated around Philadelphia.
Now listen up. I'm not going to debate you all on "omg you can't prove it's happening." It obviously is, I mean, be serious. If Obama was white, he would not draw 90 percent of the black vote, sorry.
Anyway, that's not what this topic is about, so again, I don't care about what you think regarding the possiblity that maybe its a conincidence. That's silly, but I don't care either way, think what you want to think.
I'm debating the ideology:
If someone votes for a candidate based on the color of this skin, and not the content of their character, is it racist?
If so, is there a double standard for blacks/whites who do this on a large scale?
In other words, is voting based on race alone, wrong, and if it is, why are white people flamed for it, but black people aren't?
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
