Obama's true colors: Black, white ... or neither?

[Fandango 1,439]

Evangelical Christians almost always vote for republican candidates. Candidates who almost always happen to be white.

Almost always? So when the repub candidate is not white, what do those Evangelicals do?

We'll see when there is a notable non-white Republican candidate that gets a Presidential nomination.

So how does that factor into the whole 'EC's always vote along racial lines' theory?

[HAL 9000 96]

Evangelical Christians almost always vote for republican candidates. Candidates who almost always happen to be white.

Almost always? So when the repub candidate is not white, what do those Evangelicals do?

We'll see when there is a notable non-white Republican candidate that gets a Presidential nomination.

So how does that factor into the whole 'EC's always vote along racial lines' theory?

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

[Fandango 1,439]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

[HAL 9000 96]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

[Fandango 1,439]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

So no data then?

[Nessa 23]

why are people trying to make excuses not to call him black? racism much?

[HAL 9000 96]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

So no data then?

Ummm... you did read right? HAL 9000 does not have time to highlight for you.

[Fandango 1,439]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

So no data then?

Ummm... you did read right? HAL 9000 does not have time to highlight for you.

Well you say the data doesn't do a bad job in supporting it....so where is it?

[Staashi 371]

All I can say is that until Tiger Woods, who is 1/6 black, can play at Augusta National without anyone looking at him like he's the "help", we as Americans will still be defining people by their color. It is a shame.

[HAL 9000 96]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

So no data then?

Ummm... you did read right? HAL 9000 does not have time to highlight for you.

Well you say the data doesn't do a bad job in supporting it....so where is it?

Oh I see. You're just being picky on semantics. Fine by me.

There really is no circular logic anywhere here to get tripped up on:

The 'data' means the negative data, the reality, the statistical absence of black, non-white Republicans in office. Since Evangelical Christians have a stereotypical voting behavior, and the politicians voted for have a high statistical absence of color, then perhaps you could look at Google and ask it how many non-white Republicans are elected nationwide with white Evangelical support. Not many. Google aside- its fair common sense.

Perhaps you could prove otherwise.

[HAL 9000 96]

All I can say is that until Tiger Woods, who is 1/6 black, can play at Augusta National without anyone looking at him like he's the "help", we as Americans will still be defining people by their color. It is a shame.

A complete shame indeed.

Happy Sunday to all.

HAL 9000 is out the door for the day before tomorrow's freeze down.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All I can say is that until Tiger Woods, who is 1/6 black, can play at Augusta National without anyone looking at him like he's the "help", we as Americans will still be defining people by their color. It is a shame.

A complete shame indeed.

Happy Sunday to all.

HAL 9000 is out the door for the day before tomorrow's freeze down.

Have a good one.

[Fandango 1,439]

Like I said- 'we'll see.'

But if you leave it to what's what- then the data doesn't do that bad of a job in supporting that 'theory' in non-Presidential elections.

what data? linky?

Not many victorious Black Republicans that I can think of to search for that have consistent support from that group. Its called negative data.

So no data then?

Ummm... you did read right? HAL 9000 does not have time to highlight for you.

Well you say the data doesn't do a bad job in supporting it....so where is it?

Oh I see. You're just being picky on semantics. Fine by me.

There really is no circular logic anywhere here to get tripped up on:

The 'data' means the negative data, the reality, the statistical absence of black, non-white Republicans in office. Since Evangelical Christians have a stereotypical voting behavior, and the politicians voted for have a high statistical absence of color, then perhaps you could look at Google and ask it how many non-white Republicans are elected nationwide with white Evangelical support. Not many. Google aside- its fair common sense.

Perhaps you could prove otherwise.

I don't need to prove otherwise...you said 'the data supports it' so I'm calling you on it. I've made no claims to prove or disprove here.

We've already all agreed on the fact that there have only been white candidates for POTUS, so how can anyone imply racism for 'voting white' on any group? That's my point, in case you missed it.

Sounds like a dodgy SAT problem:

'All candidates are white, all evangelicals are republicans, so which is true? A. evangelicals are racists B. republicans are racist, etc....'

Insomuch as black evangelical republican non POTUS candidates, I have no clue....you made the claim there's supporting data, so I'm interested in seeing it. Unless that was bull$hit?

Semantics indeed!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Evangelical Christians almost always vote for republican candidates. Candidates who almost always happen to be white.

Almost always? So when the repub candidate is not white, what do those Evangelicals do?

We'll see when there is a notable non-white Republican candidate that gets a Presidential nomination.

So how does that factor into the whole 'EC's always vote along racial lines' theory?

I wasn't speaking in absolutes. Just wondering why its ok to slam blacks who voted for obama (the black community tends lean democrat anyway

) but apparently not ok to point out that the same hold true for some republican voters.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, keep posting all the irrelevant. Well, this may have relevance to your generation, it sure doesn't to me. And sure I hope that this sort of ####### has no relevance whatsoever to anyone in this country when my bi-racial daughter reaches adulthood. She has the right to be judged as the person she will be regardless of what color her skin is or what color the skin of her parents happens to be. This just a bunch of useless nonsense that you - married to an African lady yourself - should be ashamed to peddle.

Um, I offered up no opinion.....It's just an article I saw on Yahoo homepage that I thought interesting....Frankly, my opinion is that holding himself up to be an "African American", but not having the same experiences as AA's, is sort of disingenuous...

I think you're referring to another thread whereby he himself mused that if he were not black, or at least believed to be so by the left media, he wouldn't have the celebrity that propelled him into the presidency with no experience, no tangible accomplishments that anyone can find other than, as Hillary put it, "he gave a speech".......

I personally have no problem with his color or his declared race one way or the other. I do have a problem with the way it was used to propel him to the highest office in this nation and the most powerful job in the world.....

No, I'm not at all ashamed and it has nothing to do with my generation....everything to do with the use of race to trump all other shortcomings a candidate may have, particularly experience and accomplishments, and to elevate that person to some arbitrary plateau solely based on race, even abandoning gender.

This election was skewed by a corrupt liberal media and a populist movement, one that as a person of a different generation have seen before. Trust me on that!

What specifically makes you suggest that Obama made the run for 1600 Penn Ave based on his race? I thought he ran on a platform just like any other candidate. Just so happened that his platform was more in tune with what most Americans felt was right for the country at this point in time. Hence, he won and the other guy lost. To attribute his victory to not much more than the color of his skin as you like to do is simply dishonest.