Are white Democrats against Obama closet racists?

Change your dial over to the conservatives. Rush, Mike Savage, and a couple others. Issue is brought up all the time...

It is sort of the same argument as guilt by association, but, he's had a LOT of associations.

Same thing with Hillary and Bill. If you knew, or worked for them, your chance of dieing just went up about 200 times from normal...
 
There will always be plenty of white folks with low self-esteem who will gravitate toward the party that the liberalMedia and Hollywood tells them is "hip" or "cool".
Click to expand...


That's the old paradigm. I think things are changing. I don't think white people are the ones making it change. They're losing control of the situation. They can't exploit racial minorities to get political power anymore. Those minorities are in the process of taking the Democratic party away from them.
 
I think matters of race are more "hard wired" in our brains than we actually care to admit.

For example, The Univesity of Wisconsin resides in liberal Madison, Wisconsin. During the Vietnam War, the UW was listed as the most radical college along with Berkely and Columbia. I think only Kent State had more serious violence than Madison.

To add to that, some professors have left or have been denied tenure for not teaching along politically correct lines.

Sounds like a tree-huggers paradise, doesn't it?

Well, if you ask black students what the biggest problem is at the UW, they almost always respond with complaints of racism.

Now, obviously I was a white student there in 1968 with that white person's perspective. If anything, I felt that the school bent over backwards to be more than fair, or even to appear more than fair.

After all of these years, I believe that if most people would answer you honestly (and I mean black, white, red and yellow), they would admit clear distrust for any other race--even if no example had ever touched their lives.
 
I think matters of race are more "hard wired" in our brains than we actually care to admit.
Click to expand...

I been saying this for years. People will always fear something or someone that is "different" than them.

I also believe, and its a shame too, that many african-americans will vote for Obama simply because hes black. And there are just as many white folk voteing for McCain simply because he is white. Regardless of where they stand on the issues.

Its the same with sex. I'd be willing to bet anything a lot of Hillarys female supporters were supporting her simply because she was a woman.
 
Unregistered,

First off, YOU are the one who introduced the race issue. Then you keep trying to keep the race conversation alive, and won't accept any other view from the guys above. YOU are the racist. YOU gotta get that!!!
 
YOU are the racist. YOU gotta get that!!!
Click to expand...

???

What did I say that makes you think I was racist?

I don't think people here are getting what I am saying. If you are a conservative or even a moderate I can see that you have legitimate reasons to not support Obama, or Hillary, or any other liberal. However, if you are a liberal democrat (the people I was referring to in the opening post) and you don't support Obama, I am simply asking why. Certainly it isn't because he is liberal, because the liberal democrats are already liberal. So there must be some other reason... and I believe closet racism amongst elitist liberals may be the cause, even though they publicly preach against such things.

PBP, I am still waiting to hear why you think race riots are simply isolated acts and not related to chronic mistreatment of minorites.
 
Hillary is a liberal. Her supporters are liberals. Obama is a liberal. So the reason Hillary supporters are not going for Barack can't be because they differ from him ideologically... they are all liberals after all. There has to be some other reason. I suspect a lot of liberals are closet racists, or are uncomfortable with Obama's muslim heritage.
Click to expand...

So, by your rational, Rommey would have gotten exactly the same votes that McCain will get had he been the candidate because they are both white and of the same party?

However, if he doesn't get those votes I guess Mormons that don't vote for McCain are anti-Baptist?

I'm sure to some people race matters, but to say with a wide sweeping brush that Obama isn't getting Clintons supporters because they are racists shows a narrow understanding of both the issues and reality.
 
Last edited:
As I noted right off the bat, unregistered, there are variations. Obama is well to the left of Hillary in actual voting and in appearance. His desire to create federal legislation banning concealed carry is one issue. His socialized medicine scheme another. So those who don't support him, whilse still leftists(not liberals) may simply not be socialists like Obama.
 
This situation is a nice demonstration of the uselessness of ascribing the most base motive to an adversary.
 
Last edited:
According to the posting guidelines:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
We don't discuss race, religion or sexual preference. As many have observed, these subjects do nothing but divide us as a community. Discussion and debate should be on the ideas presented, not the personalities that presented the idea. That's the ideal. Think Twice, post once.

For those of you that see only black and white, we suggest you leave this forum altogether. Life is not a two-toned creature, neither are our rights
Click to expand...

Am I misreading it, or, should this thread be closed?

Please clarify.
 
In my experience racism has been more intense the more "progressive" and "liberal" the person tries to be. That yearning of trying change one's personal identity of "not racist" to "uber not racist" is just well, racist.

"It's good that you're doing something useful with your life."
"Boy, you're a credit to your people."
And the classic, "He's so well-spoken."

Everyone is prejudiced against everyone else not like him or her. It's just the way we humans are programmed. It doesn't just come down to race, there are also religions, political leanings, and even geographical prejudices. When I was going to school in NYC, I get this automatic frown every time I said that I was from Virginia. "Oh, you're from the South. Boo." (Is Virginia really the South anymore?) There are people who laugh and mock at vegans who eat tofu burgers (but seriously, why the hell would you want to eat a tofu burger), and there are... PETA members.

Why are those tree-hugging pinko commie anti's so quick to dismiss us gun-toting redneck yokels, and vice versa?

It's unfortunate that the subject of race has become so taboo that nobody can just talk about it in the open anymore, for fear of getting labelled "racist." John McLaughlin talked about Obama's stereotype of being an "Oreo" (think about it) this weekend and he's getting a bunch of flak. Why should he?

There are some things that white people do that confuses me to no end. There. I said it. Likewise, I'm sure that there are many things that Asians do that confuse white people to no end. It's okay to have an open, hopefully civilized discussion. Just not on TFL. This thread should not be locked. It's talking about whether racism is a factor in this election, not about racism itself.

On topic, Obama just plain sucks. Maybe that's why some democrats are against him. Maybe these democrats don't buy into Obama's message of chainging things so that we can all change the ethics of change. We must change our mindsets to bring about the kind of of change this country really needs - change.

As for the originial post - sorry, the race card may not be used pre-emptively.
 
Socrates, I don't see this thread as a discussion of race, but a discussion of racism, which is different. If someone agrees with Obama on all issues, but still does not support him, I am interested in understanding their reasons.
 
I hate to say this, but McCain looks like a Saint compared to the two candidates the democrats came up with.

I don't think being a Democrat precludes you from liking the capitialist system, and not believing in socialism/marxism.

Considering how well things are going, gas prices, food prices, etc. I think wanting a pretty much total change in Congress and the presidency, not to mention a radical reduction in the Federal and state government is an idea that is exclusive to Republicans.

Remember, in the true sense, liberal means someone that is supposed to start from an objective view point, evaluate all data on the subject, and come to a rational, logical conclusion about the situation, and it's conclusion.

I have to think that the majority of Democrats, after 30-40 years of the 'facist-liberal' leading, have to conclude that they do not have an answer, or a program, that works effectively.

I can't help but think that a true liberal, evaluating BO's actual credentials, religious belief, political credentials, and former ties can come to the conclusion that this person is the person we want in the white house.

I can think of a number of blacks I would vote for over any of the current candidates:

Clarence Thomas, Janice Brown, come to mind.

The problem is, it's hard to find a quality person who will run for the presidency...
 
I don't think being a Democrat precludes you from liking the capitialist system, and not believing in socialism/marxism.
Click to expand...
To be fair, are you implying that todays republicans are against socialism? The same ones that repeatedly profess to be against government intervention and public funded safety nets but who continuously show otherwise with their rich capitalist friends run their businesses aground through greed and mismanagement such as with the S&L industry, big energy, and now the mortgage lending banks?
 
To be fair, are you implying that todays republicans are against socialism? The same ones that repeatedly profess to be against government intervention and public funded safety nets but who continuously show otherwise with their rich capitalist friends run their businesses aground through greed and mismanagement such as with the S&L industry, big energy, and now the mortgage lending banks?
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with the above practices, but thats still far and away from income redistribution and creating public programs for every social ill.
 
Not to mention them discussing the nationalization of the oil industry in an open committee meeting a few weeks back.

STAGE 2, we agreed on something!! How about that! :p
 
creating public programs for every social ill.
Click to expand...

What do you consider Medicare Part D (ie, the drug program for old people who didn't plan on getting old)?

Bush ushered in the greatest increase in spending on social programs since LBJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top