no, what he said was i'm a racist for noting racist behavior amongst some people who voted for obama.
and as i pointed out above, your scenario is flawed, since it's not only black people who voted for obama because he was black- plenty of whites did as well. the point is that Obama voters, regardless of their race, were more likely to vote for obama because of his race.
And your implication is that that in and of itself constitutes racism. It does not. So sorry there will be no white history month and you cannot use the N word on your forthcoming LP. Yes it's a double standard, so what.
even if he did do that, that's not what lynus and i were discussing. we were specifically discussing people saying if you voted against obama, you were racist.
You only responded to one of the questions, and you didn't even answer it completely. Besides, I responded to that. I'm still waiting for your estimate. It doesn't have to be exact. Again, you're wrong. You are misinterpreting the statistics. I've asked for clarification of what you are really trying to say, but until you provide clarification I can only assume that you don't understand what you're reading.
No, I can't answer that based on the article. All the article states is that race was more important to those who voted FOR Obama than AGAINST Obama, and it is both interesting and relevant due to the discourse that has been had here and world-wide regarding the subject. That's really all I'm saying, and based on basso's response to me a few posts back (post #137), that was the point he was trying to make. Granted, if you took 100 Nazis and 100 members of the NAACP, and asked them if race was important to them, I'm sure both of them would say "yes," though it would be important in entirely different ways, one bad and one good, respectively. And RM95, I'm sorry I cannot provide links to posts. I did a quick search but didn't come up with anything, but rimmy's post is an example. It's his feeling and he is entitled to it, and while it doesn't explicitly say "vote for Obama or you're a racist," it certainly implies that America was still too racist of a country to elect a black man as president. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. Christ my head hurts....
That article was interesting only in the fact that it said that race being important or not to voters did not affect the outcome of the election. That's the only reason the article was interesting. If you think that there are people who actually think that nobody who voted for Obama thought race was important, then the article might be interesting for that reason. I just don't think those people exist, so you (or basso) would be fighting a non-existent foe. I'm not just trying to argue technicalities. I think you and basso and others have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the statistics in that article show. I'm trying to get you explain your position further and/or understand that the numbers aren't necessarily what they seem on their face. Your head hurts because you actually have to think about it on a deeper level than "55-44 Obama voters". Or maybe you're right and I'm missing something, but you still have to think harder to explain yourself in a way that addresses my critiques so that I can see where I'm wrong. The best way to do that might be to try to understand them with an open mind and consider that maybe I am right.
The facts in evidence don't show white voters who considered race to be an important factor to have voted more for Obama than against - so your statement is inaccurate. Again, you have no idea how to properly interpret statistics. Your unwillingness to answer a basic question that has been asked multiple times only demonstrates this further.
Hate to post in this "thread" at all, but... Anyone notice there is a 2% "effect"... as in the national election was like 53-46, and the supposed self-identified Racially motivated voters only voted 55-44 for Obama? And if anyone noticed that, are they familiar with the term "statistical uncertainty" that plagues polling data? Oh nevermind.
Fair enough. You say he has a point. I say he doesn't. I gave my reasons why not. It's just a message board, so I certainly don't expect people to spend time analyzing and providing lengthy detailed responses. But don't be surprised when the next time around we still believe that you're wrong about this.
Wrong about what? That I think it's relevant after hearing all kinds of things about America being too racist to elect a black man, exit polls say that republicans cared about race less than democrats? I think it's at least a little interesting. You don't. So what?
I think the "point" is based on a misunderstanding. In that sense it's wrong. Isn't this forum called Debate and Discussion? I don't consider this just a place to read about other people's opinions. It is a place to discuss and debate things to gain a better understanding of why people have different opinions. If someone doesn't want to explain or defend their statements I sincerely don't have a problem with that, but that's not going to stop me from asking.
