Discussion: Are US election based on Racism? - Page 2

Rick

I'm with Obama, not because he is black but because he truly cares about his country.

Marq

No. There are, of course, racist people who will vote for candidates based on their race. But it's probably not as prevalent as you're making it seem.

Rumpelstiltskin

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaqkavalli

i think that "Black people" are being more Racist ... NO OFFENCE

Kaqkavalli

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumpelstiltskin

NOOOO im not ... all my faves are ... white ... Wait :P

Joking but you guys that are voting did you even read Romneys program?

And what if Obama was Asian ... would that many of black people vote for him?

eli's_rhythm

Quote:

Originally posted by AlexandraStanFan

Not on Republican side but def on Obama's side. A lot of them don't even consider Romney's plan or have bias before deciding to vote. They only voting because he's the first black president and not on his horrible track record!

Look, there's no way anyone could blame Obama for the economy getting worse since he was elected. The recession and job loss in 2009-2010 was beyond his control. The Republican numbers argument looks nice on paper, but when you consider what he has actually done to salvage the US economy in the last couple years, his "horrible track record" starts to look pretty good.

Quote:

When President Obama was inaugurated on January 15, 2009 unemployment was at 7.8% . Later, reported at 8.3% for the month. The national debt was at $10.6 trillion. Budget deficits were at $485.2 billion, up from $161 billion the previous year. The American public, along with virtually every other nation in the western world, were in a panic. By mid-year unemployment hit 10% and debt was building up at a rapid pace. Fast forward to the present, national debt has hit $15.9 trillion. There is a budget deficit of $974 billion and unemployment is stubbornly high. Has the economy become worse since inauguration day 2009? Technically, yes it did.

It’s very difficult to look at those figures and not feel distraught... Well let’s look a bit closer at the real situation.

Unemployment bottomed out at 10% in the summer of 2009 but it has trended downward ever since reaching 8.2% in 2012, less than Obama’s first year in office. Yes, it did increase slightly, back to 8.3% [this is outdated w/ unemployment at 7.8% now].

... By inauguration day 2009, the economy was hemorrhaging 600,000 plus jobs each month. By the end of it all, the numbers were essentially split down the middle for Bush and Obama. Both presidents had to accept that during the worst part of the recession ~4.2 million jobs were lost under each of their administrations. Since then, we’ve seen 4 million jobs added to the economy over the last 3 years. Given the depths of the recession, gaining back almost half of those lost in a relatively short amount of time hardly speaks to the failed policy the Republican Party seeks to illustrate. Those claims become more erroneous when one considers those 4 million created jobs represent virtually all those lost under President Obama.

As for debt:

Quote:

Of the total current debt, which sits at $15.9 trillion, almost half (42.7%) was accrued under George W Bush. Debt under President Obama comes in a distant 2nd place at 16.8%. Reagan is third (13.2%) with Clinton, the first President Bush and all administrations prior to Reagan accounting for the remaining 27.3%.

The primary contributors to the debt under the Obama administration include the three largest contributors to Bush’s debt load, the Bush tax cuts, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the Medicare prescription drug plan, most of which remained as bills-to-be-paid through the last 4 years. However savings have been achieved through ending of the Iraq War and Medicare provisions included in the Affordable Care Act.

Finally,

Quote:

Paul Ryan has grown fond of saying, this is the worst recovery since the Great Depression. A proper, contextual response may be, “Well, yes, yes it is. But isn’t that because we are, in fact, recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression.” As yet, it does not appear anyone has confronted Mr. Ryan pointing this out to him.

...However, it is worth noting, with Europe taking the austerity route – the same one Republicans promote – the US is just about the only western world nation that is not in a double-dip recession or on the verge of falling into one.

http://open.salon.com/blog/mpbulleti...se_under_obama

Not the most beautifully written article, but it got all the facts across. Our economy would have been screwed no matter who was elected president in 2008, and I'm not putting all the blame on Bush either. How the new president responded to it was going to make our break the country's future prospects. Obama has done what he had to do to stabilize our economy and, on top of many of his social policies, that gives me confidence in his ability to keep us improving for the next four years. I see no proof that Romney's economic plans, muddled as they are, will somehow immediately bring us back to pre-2008 levels of prosperity; most Massachusetts voters seem to agree with me. I do see proof that our economy has been strengthened under Obama. In him I see a president with more consistency in his policies and more conviction in his beliefs.

To answer the thread's title, yes, yes they are. And that's because US elections are based on everything. Race matters, sexuality matters, the economy matters, poor people matter, rich people matter, women matter, religion matters. Everything has an effect on policy and it all causes a reciprocal public response.

Exodus

Quote:

Originally posted by Benzene

The Democratic candidate has received ~90% of the black vote in pretty much every election since 1980, regardless of their race. Please study American history.

I will not speak on Republicans, because I'm not interested in warning points.

Don't be naive. Clearly, they're speaking about the amount of African Americans now showing up for an African American candidate.

I genuinely believe that 90% of this forum could benefit from taking a high school level statistics course or at least reading the first chapter about "misleading statistics."

Guy

Educate yourself. That's all I'm gonna say, because this is not worth a wp.

Benzene

Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus

Don't be naive. Clearly, they're speaking about the amount of African Americans now showing up for an African American candidate.

I genuinely believe that 90% of this forum could benefit from taking a high school level statistics course or at least reading the first chapter about "misleading statistics."

There's nothing to be naive about. Are black voters more excited about Obama? Sure. But it's a fact that no Republican has received more than %15 of the black vote since Nixon. There's nothing misleading about that.

Guy

If Herman Cain had the ****ing GOP nomination, he would not have solicited the black vote, so get the **** out of her with your flawed logic. Blacks are historically (as in the past 30 years) Democratic voters. A Democrat would have 90% of the blacks vote regardless. Bye.

Exodus

Quote:

Originally posted by Benzene

There's nothing to be naive about. Are black voters more excited about Obama? Sure. But it's a fact that no Republican has received more than %15 of the black vote since Nixon. There's nothing misleading about that.

Alright, let me clear this up. What I meant can be seen in this simply math example:

Say in the 1996 election when two white candidates were running, 100 black voters showed up. It's still true to say that 90 of them voted for Clinton.

What I'm saying now is that, in 2008 when Obama was running, 1,000 black voters showed up. Therefore, 900 of them voted for Obama.

I don't think anyone will deny that an exponential amount more of black voters are now voting and that could possibly be due to race only.

That's what I mean lol. I don't know why people are loosing a gasket when I'm simply stating that of course more black people are voting now that there is a black President.

ManDown

Quote:

ALL black people voting for Obama (because hes black)

That's not a generalization or anything.

Most black people that I know personally are actually voting for Romney, so...

Guy

Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus

Alright, let me clear this up. What I meant can be seen in this simply math example:

Say in the 1996 election when two white candidates were running, 100 black voters showed up. It's still true to say that 90 of them voted for Clinton.

What I'm saying now is that, in 2008 when Obama was running, 1,000 black voters showed up. Therefore, 900 of them voted for Obama.

I don't think anyone will deny that an exponential amount more of black voters are now voting and that could possibly be due to race only.

That's what I mean lol. I don't know why people are loosing a gasket when I'm simply stating that of course more black people are voting now that there is a black President.

That tidbit of information is irrelevant if they're voting in the same proportion as before.

Navyboy20

Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus

Alright, let me clear this up. What I meant can be seen in this simply math example:

Say in the 1996 election when two white candidates were running, 100 black voters showed up. It's still true to say that 90 of them voted for Clinton.

What I'm saying now is that, in 2008 when Obama was running, 1,000 black voters showed up. Therefore, 900 of them voted for Obama.

I don't think anyone will deny that an exponential amount more of black voters are now voting and that could possibly be due to race only.

That's what I mean lol. I don't know why people are loosing a gasket when I'm simply stating that of course more black people are voting now that there is a black President.

By your logic they're still voting in the same proportion so it doesn't even matter

in 1996 10 people voted republican, In 2008 100 black people voted republican thats still 10x as many black votes than before, so whats your point

BadBitch

Quote:

Originally posted by Walk_Away21

Sad but it's kind of true. Tbh I think more black people vote for Obama because of race. I mean even look at Stacey Dash being crucified by her own race. I know a lot of white people who vote for Obama though.

And obviously this isn't "politically correct" but I hope there can be a civil discussion about this. It's an interesting topic.

WHITE people having for white candidates for decades now yet no one accused them of voting for someone just because they're "white". It goes both ways.

Hooligan

Well, when one candidate is black and the other white then yes.

IsidoraMarí

Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus

Alright, let me clear this up. What I meant can be seen in this simply math example:

Say in the 1996 election when two white candidates were running, 100 black voters showed up. It's still true to say that 90 of them voted for Clinton.

What I'm saying now is that, in 2008 when Obama was running, 1,000 black voters showed up. Therefore, 900 of them voted for Obama.

I don't think anyone will deny that an exponential amount more of black voters are now voting and that could possibly be due to race only.

That's what I mean lol. I don't know why people are loosing a gasket when I'm simply stating that of course more black people are voting now that there is a black President.

Are you mad that black people can vote?

Exodus

Quote:

Originally posted by Guy

That tidbit of information is irrelevant if they're voting in the same proportion as before.

OMFG. Clearly people are not voting in the same proportion. Had 2008 been two white candidates, the turnout wouldn't be the same.

Of course I'm so mad that black people can vote because I'm not a minority myself.