Thread: Would Obama Be a Shoe-In If He Were White?

Originally Posted by Jeff777

It's clear you know nothing about politics...again...thank god you're too young to vote.

Instead of insulting me by throwing an insult towards me, why don't you actually try to back up your thoughts this time?

Barack is a fool. If he weren't then he a) wouldn't flollop and voon every time he thinks he "Picked the wrong side" (See: Every decision he's ever made) and b) would have picked Hillary as his running mate, which would ahve practically ensured him being elected, and getting the Democrats in the Whit House, etc...

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Instead of insulting me by throwing an insult towards me, why don't you actually try to back up your thoughts this time?

Barack is a fool. If he weren't then he a) wouldn't flollop and voon every time he thinks he "Picked the wrong side" (See: Every decision he's ever made) and b) would have picked Hillary as his running mate, which would ahve practically ensured him being elected, and getting the Democrats in the Whit House, etc...

I didn't insult you. I made an evident and obvious statement which is irrefutably apparent to anyone reading your pseudo-political posts. And as far as Barack choosing Hilary, I agree that it probably would have been the better choice as far as polls are concerned and his "change campaign", but it wouldn't have been the perfect balance. Barack needed someone who could pass as John McCain's counterpart, someone who has more experience than he does. Someone older, much older. Joe Biden fit the bill. He's the democratic version of John McCain. And McCain needed someone who was Obama's counterpart. Someone young, vigorous, and someone who represented change itself. Therefore he chose someone the exact same age as Barack - Sarah Palin. By choosing Palin, he has neutralized Obama's "Change and hope" speeches. Had Barack of chosen Hilary...it's very likely McCain would NOT of chosen Palin. Afterall...what's Alaska to him? He doesn't need it to win. All in all I think Obama's choice was the most appropriate choice...but not the most popular. Don't confuse the two.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I didn't insult you. I made an evident and obvious statement which is irrefutably apparent to anyone reading your pseudo-political posts. And as far as Barack choosing Hilary, I agree that it probably would have been the better choice as far as polls are concerned and his "change campaign", but it wouldn't have been the perfect balance. Barack needed someone who could pass as John McCain's counterpart, someone who has more experience than he does. Someone older, much older. Joe Biden fit the bill. He's the democratic version of John McCain. And McCain needed someone who was Obama's counterpart. Someone young, vigorous, and someone who represented change itself. Therefore he chose someone the exact same age as Barack - Sarah Palin. By choosing Palin, he has neutralized Obama's "Change and hope" speeches. Had Barack of chosen Hilary...it's very likely McCain would NOT of chosen Palin. Afterall...what's Alaska to him? He doesn't need it to win. All in all I think Obama's choice was the most appropriate choice...but not the most popular. Don't confuse the two.

Very interesting topic here. As far as running mates are concerned, I think you nailed it on the head.
Seismo, adding Hil to the Barack team may have been powerful at attracting the elites, but Barack is interested in gaining the support of his own people-
The people who did not have anything handed to them, whose parents overcame struggles and loss of home, who are still fighting to support themselves as "middle class" americans.
The elites currently are in almost exclusive control.
Hilary comes from that elitist society. Take a look at her professional experience prior to politics- she helped run companies like Wal-Mart, literally the largest pub corporation in the world by revenue.
Hilary would attract the powerful people who run companies like this. The people who currently run the country.
Barack wants to attract the workers- the people who RUN the machine that the elites profit from, while the middle and lower classes struggle to buy groceries
Here's a fun, verifiable fact about Sarah Palin btw- she is not anti-tax as she says. As mayor of Wasilla, she raised the tax of GROCERIES to pay for a new indoor sporting arena. Meanwhile, the average price of groceries has risen 6%.

I've worked hard for everything I have. My father told me that if there was something I wanted, I would have to work for it. And everythin I ever worked for, I shared what I could.

I will NOT vote to further the status quo in which the powerful corporations perform wage slavery while cutting benefits for me and my family. Nowadays, the longer you work for a company, the less benefits you get. Today, the longer our children are in school, the less extracurricular, mind and body developing activities are available. Less music, less art, less sports, less care.
Meanwhile, exxon-mobil turn more than 30 BILLION in profit- and that is PER MONTH. Gas prices continue to rise, the rich get richer$$$$

And for the elites, the CEOs of wal mart and exxon mobil and macdonalds, things COULD NOT GET BETTER.

Our families break down not because of the drug epidemic, but because of the corporate epidemic. Our children are raised by yugi-oh!, Mtv, by and under-paid, uncompassionate teachers receiving less and less support.

No wonder we're losing control.

No joke, depending on the policies and direction of the next administration- that is, if we as a govermemt and a people do not regain focus on human and societal and familial development, and lose our focus on selfish corporatistic self preservation; if we do not begin to react with love and logic instead of only fear and distrust...

I WILL be finding another part of the world to develop myself.

Sorry about that rant there, I kinda got carried away.

As for whether or not baracks race will lose him the presidency, I really can't say. I live in California, and I think we're quite open minded as far as black/white is concerned, but I'm disappointed with the increasing californian/mexican hate.
I think its also foolish of me to assume that the rest of the country is as "progressive" (if u can call it that) as CA in regards to race. I think that there are many more people who will be affected by the obvious neo-con fear tactics-- use of his middle name, rumors of islam, socialist/"most left wing senator" kinda stuff.

My dad is pretty logical, but conservative, and he falls into that kind of thinking, and it amazes me, especially since its all been disproved, aside from the ridiculousness of the idea, that he would believe in some sort of islamo-conspiracy

Anyway, I'm done ranting for now I promise

If anyone didn't notice, we live in a controlled dictator ship. We are not living in a democracy. Sorry to say.

You got a choice between, obama, or mc bush.

4 more years of bush, or 4 years of obama who's at least doing his best to try to change a corrupt government.

Originally Posted by TheMoon

If anyone didn't notice, we live in a controlled dictator ship. We are not living in a democracy. Sorry to say.

You got a choice between, obama, or mc bush.

4 more years of bush, or 4 years of obama who's at least doing his best to try to change a corrupt government.

I agree. Though nowhere in our constitution does it mention our government being founded on democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I agree. Though nowhere in our constitution does it mention our government being founded on democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Yeah who came up with the idea that we live in a democracy?

The only real democracy i know of was ancient greece....

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I agree. Though nowhere in our constitution does it mention our government being founded on democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

More specifically, a Constitutional Demorepublic.

i.e. People vote, but the people you vote for make all the real decisions.