So How Much Is Colin Powell getting paid to Endorse Obama?
Options
blakfyahking
Members Posts: 15,785 ✭✭✭✭✭
Nobody else finds this strange to see Colin Powell cross party lines for a 2nd time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xkGTPfGVk
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE89O0RY20121025
No political pundits making a big deal out of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xkGTPfGVkhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE89O0RY20121025
No political pundits making a big deal out of this?
Comments
-
powell is trying to rid his legacy of the bush years
this does more for him than obama in the long run
-
Yah, cuz there's NO WAY he could arrive at this conclusion, right? No way.
-
yes it's impossible
totally impossible
in fact im sure he's cue cards
frankly he doesn't need to publicly endorse anyone
but he chooses to like many public figures and he has a motive to do so, if he didnt he would simply ? -
Powell endorsed Obama four years ago I guess it didn't come as a surprise to them.
(Well that and the fact that many people expect blacks to vote strictly due to race.) -
Colin Powell was very, very skeptical of the Iraq War to say the least. The whole concept of it went against the doctrine that bears his name for ? 's sake. He tried hard to talk Bush out of it, but when that ship sailed.....he decided to give dude the benefit of the doubt and stay loyal.
We know how that worked out.
He put his personal credibility and honor on the line for that infamous U.N presentation full of shoddy-ass "intelligence". He was, by most accounts, FORCED out of the Bush Administration. When he was asked to step down, his response was supposedly along the lines of "Oh, okay....so you're gonna dump Rumsfeld's wack ass too, right?" He HATED Rumsfeld. I can only imagine how he felt while watching Rummy royally ? up his job for another 2 years before finally getting the hook.
He'll NEVER come out and say it, but he feels guilty about his role in the Iraq War buildup and despises them NeoCon ? w/ a passion. I can only imagine how he feels about all they racist ? ....remember what Limbaugh said after he endorsed Obama the first time? Really, The GOP should be thanking their lucky stars that he isn't out thurr giving blistering speeches at Democratic Conventions and running for a Republican's Senate seat.
I see him as a tragic historical figure. Denzel should play him in a movie about the Bush White House getting ready for Iraq. -
Powell endorsed Obama four years ago I guess it didn't come as a surprise to them.
(Well that and the fact that many people expect blacks to vote strictly due to race.)
The funniest part about that notion is that the majority of people in all non-white races and also white women in the U.S. favor Obama. The only block Romney has overwhelming support from is white males so when they make the argument that people are voting solely because of race it really applies only to white males since they're the only odd group out. -
no, people cross party lines when they deem it appropriate. Powell is simply not so conservative that it's a big stretch to endorse Obama over Romney if he think it's appropriate. i was surprised he publicly backed Obama over McCain, but am not surprised after the last four years that he's siding with Obama again
uh, you do know this post does not counter the notion that black voters support Obama solely for racial reasons, right?Sneak Dissa wrote: »The funniest part about that notion is that the majority of people in all non-white races and also white women in the U.S. favor Obama. The only block Romney has overwhelming support from is white males so when they make the argument that people are voting solely because of race it really applies only to white males since they're the only odd group out. -
no, people cross party lines when they deem it appropriate. Powell is simply not so conservative that it's a big stretch to endorse Obama over Romney if he think it's appropriate. i was surprised he publicly backed Obama over McCain, but am not surprised after the last four years that he's siding with Obama again
uh, you do know this post does not counter the notion that black voters support Obama solely for racial reasons, right?Sneak Dissa wrote: »The funniest part about that notion is that the majority of people in all non-white races and also white women in the U.S. favor Obama. The only block Romney has overwhelming support from is white males so when they make the argument that people are voting solely because of race it really applies only to white males since they're the only odd group out.
so does that mean that women, latinos, asians, jews, indians and and anyone else that isn't a while male typically support Obama for racial reasons?
does it also mean that when clinton had the same margin of black votes vs. bush and dole it was for racial reasons?
or is that just the narrative that has been pushed since 2008 in order to shore up the republican base (aka older white people who incidentally have never voted overwhelmingly for a non-white candidate since this country was founded)?
let me put it another way - white males are the only racial group in the u.s. who have never as a majority voted for a person of another race than them. -
no, what it means is that saying "white guys vote for Romney for racial reasons" does NOT mean "black guys do not vote for Obama for racial reasons."Sneak Dissa wrote: »so does that mean that women, latinos, asians, jews, indians and and anyone else that isn't a while male typically support Obama for racial reasons?
surely the fact that all the presidential candidates save one has had no bearing on thisSneak Dissa wrote: »let me put it another way - white males are the only racial group in the u.s. who have never as a majority voted for a person of another race than them.
-
I can't prove people's reasons for voting a certain way but if all but one racial group is supporting one candidate and that remaining racial group is relatively isolated in it's support of the other I'm not sure why you would choose to parse out one of the groups that's actually in the "norm" and question their motives unless you're inclined to believe in assumptions (either yours or others).
Here's a funny quote...
Source: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/11/the_wisdom_of_politico.phpJosh Marshall November 4, 2012, 6:56 PM 35687
From an article just out from Politico …If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.
A broad mandate this is not.
As I’ve written many times before, the second rate product. If this is a subject that interests you, I’d encourage you to read the piece I linked right there.
Or to be more specific, Obama’s winning but not with the best votes. I mean really, if you can’t win with a broad cross-section of white people, can you really be said to represent the country? Really.
I can't agree with a logic that assumes that since people that aren't white are supporting a non-white candidate that their votes are worth less.
I guess it's just hard for certain people to believe that black people aren't just simpletons as a whole with no grasp of politics. -
okay, but who is arguing these points? this is your quote: "when they make the argument that people are voting solely because of race it really applies only to white males since they're the only odd group out." but are white males the only group whose votes are predictable for racial reasons? because i have a feeling that many of them vote the way they do for non-racial reasons.Sneak Dissa wrote: »I can't agree with a logic that assumes that since people that aren't white are supporting a non-white candidate that their votes are worth less.
I guess it's just hard for certain people to believe that black people aren't just simpletons as a whole with no grasp of politics.
-
dude... if we're going off statistical evidence and facts black males will vote overwhelmingly for a white candidate whereas white males will not vote overwhelmingly for a non-white candidate. any argument you make beyond that does not include facts or statistics.
this is the end of this argument unless you want to offer up something other than your opinion. -
^^^ is your avi a topography or whatever? if so, of what? just curious.
-
it's an album cover... joy division - unknown pleasures. but the image is a graphical representation of the frequency of the first observed pulsar.
-
ohh ok, interesting.
-
...says the guy who is not ACTUALLY providing statistical evidence.Sneak Dissa wrote: »dude... if we're going off statistical evidence and facts black males will vote overwhelmingly for a white candidate whereas white males will not vote overwhelmingly for a non-white candidate. any argument you make beyond that does not include facts or statistics.
this is the end of this argument unless you want to offer up something other than your opinion.
there has been ONE non-white candidate for president, so we're only talking about two elections; otherwise, you're going to have white voters and black voters voting for a white candidate regardless. then we have the issue that, once again, you're refusing to acknowledge that a white guy can vote for a white candidate for non-racial reasons and a black guy can vote for a black candidate for non-racial reasons.
so show me your stat breakdown that shows black voters "voting overwhelmingly for a white candidate" for president in 2008 and 2012 when you're ready.
