Race played less of a role in the election than age, exit polls showed. While Obama is projected to be the nation's first black president, John McCain would have been the oldest person ever elected to the nation's highest office. Twice as many of those polled Tuesday said age was an important factor in their vote as those who said race was. Among those factoring age into their vote, 78 percent went for Obama to 21 percent for McCain, exit polls showed. Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama. But Obama also was the winner by a similar margin among those who said race was not important, "which suggests that race was not a decisive factor in this election," Schneider said.
While Obama is projected to be the nation's first black president, John McCain would have been the oldest person ever elected to the nation's highest office.
Twice as many of those polled Tuesday said age was an important factor in their vote as those who said race was.
Among those factoring age into their vote, 78 percent went for Obama to 21 percent for McCain, exit polls showed.
Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama. But Obama also was the winner by a similar margin among those who said race was not important, "which suggests that race was not a decisive factor in this election," Schneider said.
We are turning a page I think
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/index.html
but it happened.
Just because someone gets elected doesn't make ppl racist overnight.
Now say Obama is president for a6 months and starts rounding up ALL whites in concetration camps tTHEN yes I undestand THAT would turn ppl into racists
Or say ALL blacks that are happy about Obama suddenly go in the streets and start beating all whites they see THEN that would turn a bunch of ppl racist.
But NOT a guy suddenly getting elected by whites AND nonwhites and who has never called on ppl to hate each other because of race.
McCain getting elected would NOT turn all blacks into racists either. Sure they would probably have been UPSET. But NOT turn racist overnight.
Now if you say a lot of whites (or nonwhites republicans) were UPSET about the elections and wanted to VENT about it then sure I understand.
Again - I don't need your input on this - it's not ME who is doing this.
I didnt say thats the way you felt. In fact however YOU felt about races was there BEFORE the elctions I mean Thats pretty obvious.
I don't know! Again - It's not ME.
Not your opnion on the issue.
Are an idiot or what?
They don't have to be pure to be able to identify their main, predomiant race.
How can you KNOW for sure they are pure? How can you know they are not mixed, especially if they don't know themselves?
BTW that brings anonther question.
How would YOU create that White nation you dream of? How would you SELECT the white ppl to live in that country?
Yes, you said that all Whites are mixed - 35% "African" and 65% "Asian" or something like that.
I DID give an EXAMPLE of whites who LOOKED whte, were CONSIDERED white, and probably thought of themselves as White and yet it turned out that they were
So I'm wrong about what?
And genetics don't determine species either -
You're not a Human because of your genetics Jakey.
They mix.
You make it sound like as soon as white ppl live with black ppl they AUTOMATICALLY bang each other. They don't. even in my mixed hood they dont as much as you think. Maybe 20% to 30% do.
Mixing a White and Black, for example, destroys race - the child is no longer White or Black. If that happened enough, race would no longer exist.
It takes a generation or 2 but it happens. So it does NOT disappear,
Destroy to reduce (an object) to useless fragments,
Unless you think that ONLY whites or pure ppl are "useful"
injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
So no its NOT "beyond repair". The race has not been "annihilated"
If almost all Whites mixed, their numbers would REDUCE
My city is 1/3 white, 1/3 asian 1/3 black. Of those a few DO mix but NOT everyone. Even if they did after a generation or 2 there would STILL be 1/3 whites.
The number only REDUCES if whites don't REPRODUCE as fast as nonwhites. If they do that then its THEIR own doing.
For example in my city let's say NO ONE mixes. But whites only make 1 or 2 kids per couple while asians make 2 or 3 kids per couple and latinos make 3 or 4 kids per couple. THEn what will happen after even 1 generation? There will much MORE nonwhites than whites. Its not the fault of the nonwhites
its because whites DONT WANT to mak e as many babies. But EVEN IF they are segregated in a little zoo they still will be FEWER whites overall.
Well, it's happening.
If they have known nonWhite ancestry - they aren't White.
What if their ancestry is NOT KNOWN or not fully known? Will that make them MORE white or LESS white?
A white person would have to KNOW every single person in their genealogic tree to make sure there's not a sinlge nonwhite in it in order to fit into your idea of "white"
No, it can't.
It will mix so much that it will be present in their genetics in variable proportions - but will not exist.
If someone is 7/8 white why would they be NOT be white?
It takes A LOT to do that.
But accrording to you only PURE whites are whites, yet you say that europeans come from the black sea.
Well the black sea has a LOT of influence from Asia. So how can you tell really if Whites are "pure" anyway? Maybe there's really no way to do that unless the whites can prove that their ancestor were NEVER raped by ANY mongols AT ANY point. Thats gonna be really hard to do..
And, if everyone is mixed, two mixed people won't pop out a Nordic baby.
Some of them could if they wanted.
They discriminate by income too - some doctors have gotten fired for making rich people pay more than average people for the same thing.
A good doctor treats ALL his patients differently. If he treats all whites the same he's a bad doctor.
It means nothing of the sort.
It means Whites are very diverse - so what? It doesn't mean that nonWhite genetics should be thrown randomly in the White gene pool.
So HOW do we know it has not ALREADTY happended anyway and that the "white" race don't ALREADY INCLUDE some genes from the "nonwhite" race?
The fact that there is a lot of variation within the same race means that the race CAN survive even if PLENTY of variation.
If it no longer exists - it becomes destroyed.
If, in 50 years, only 1% of the population is White and is falling - we are destroyed.
Even if we totally isolate you guys in a zoo the only way you guys can really "survive" (as you call it, which as I said is stupid) is to start either reproducing more or cloning each other.
If a White and Black have a kid - only HALF of that childs genetics are White. If he has kids with another Black - only ONE FOURTH of the genetics are White.
If he has kids with another Black - only ONE FOURTH of the genetics are White.
I already explained to you though that thats not the way genetics works but you too far gon to get that.
Two mixed people will never make a non-mixed child. It's genetically impossible. Two Whites make a White - nothing else.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-17-2003-37452.asp
The black woman - with white parents Long before science learned to meddle with genes, there was Sandra Laing. She entered the world in 1955, a beautiful baby by all accounts, who could be expected to grow up in a close-knit family amid mines of gold and forests of pine. At the first sight of Sandra no one, not the nurse, her mother, father or neighbours would admit the obvious. Nature had played a trick. Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, yet their daughter was dark. By a biological quirk, the pigment of an unknown black ancestor had lain dormant for generations and manifested in Sandra. Genetic throwbacks were not unheard of but if there was ever a wrong place and wrong time for this phenomenon, it was apartheid South Africa. Her life is an extraordinary tale of a search for identity in a system built on race and prejudice, where home, school, job and sex life was demarcated by skin colour. Born to a conservative Afrikaner family, Sandra's fate was to not be what she was supposed to be.
Her life is an extraordinary tale of a search for identity in a system built on race and prejudice, where home, school, job and sex life was demarcated by skin colour. Born to a conservative Afrikaner family, Sandra's fate was to not be what she was supposed to be.
Those pesky parents DESTROYED the white race by marrying WITHIN the race!
Also
Flip a coin about 50 times and see if you get all heads. You have a one in 1.12589991 × 10^15 chance.
I'm not obsessed with the "Purity" of our race - I just want it to SURVIVE.
How about hot/warm and cool/cold? Warm can be 80F to 10000F (or the highest possible temperature) Cold can be from 50F to absolute 0. 30 degrees is less than 1000's - but hot and cold still exist, correct?
Warm can be 80F to 10000F (or the highest possible temperature)
Cold can be from 50F to absolute 0. 30 degrees is less than 1000's - but hot and cold still exist, correct?
Race can exist yes but it is a RELATIVE term.
{bunch of stuff} Thats total nonsense.
Thats total nonsense.
I'm not saying they SHOULD do that - but it happened.
Oh yeah the ONLY reson any white would vote for Obama is because they are "black-loving". Man we must all have been white-loving for centuries...
What kind of twisted mess up reasoning is that?
I thought you told me once you could do that with 90% accuracy. And HOW do YOU know that someone is PURE just by looking at them.
And HOW do YOU know that someone is PURE just by looking at them.
And I can identify the race of someone - if they're not mixed a lot.
But that doesn't mean that one race is made up of only other races mixed. Where did anybody say that? And does it matter?
So you're wrong.
Ok which proves that genetics do NOT determine race.
WHY do you think it CANNOT survive in the presence of other races?
A Black and a White have a kid. Yes or no - is the kid White?
Total bullshit. Why does "mixing" lead to "destruction" of race? Why does living with people of other races lead to mixing?
Destroy to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
If people live in the same area, there might be SOME mixing but it does NOT have to happen. It really depends of the proportion.
I have some friends who have great grandparents who are black. They are blonde blue eye and white. There's NO way to tell they have any black origin.
If you don't believe in the drop rule then the white race "came back" in my buddys. So the white race did not "disappear" in them.
And if you add more and more yellow the color turns back to yellow.
Some people often DO admit it. Also if they write a long post before that that says "Im gonna go take out some black ass" its pretty obvious thats thats what they wanted.
Also if they write a long post before that that says "Im gonna go take out some black ass" its pretty obvious thats thats what they wanted.
Yes, if they SAY they're going to attack Blacks - then they just admitted it there.
They don't "treat" them diffienretly as in charging one twice as much for the same procedure.
No but it MEANS its not so important that you have to worry about it all the time and think it has to be preserved like a shrine.
It MEANS that mixing does NOT destroy any races.
It MEANS that race is not something so fixed in time and in place that anything that happens to it will "destroy" it.
It MEANS that thetraits associated with a particular race CAN reappear if ppl choose each other according to those traits. People are FREE to choose and select the traits they like in someone else.
If a White and Black have a kid - only HALF of that childs genetics are White.
It can go on and on.
Two mixed people will never make a non-mixed child. It's genetically impossible.
Two Whites make a White - nothing else.
An asian can be attracted to a white and make babies that can have traits of on, the other or both mixed togther and when that kid grows up he or she can be attracted to anonther white and next thing to know some of the kids will have practically ALL the traits associated with the white race.
It MEANS obsessing about the "purity" of a race is stupid and unscientific.
Age is not genetically determined. EVERYONE ages. Thats a totally stupid comparison.
Cold can be from 50F to absolute 0.
30 degrees is less than 1000's - but hot and cold still exist, correct?
Of course I know who Don Black is...
And I read the stats on the forum - Which I went to the day that Obama was elected, the next day, and the day after that.
I can't even post without the mods approving of my posts yet :P
Just wait - if Obama makes a bunch of mistakes, people will probably blame it on race or something like that.
Someone could turn racist in 5 minutes by having a "Bad" encounter with someone of another race.
Usually ppl that "turn racist" that quickly already did not trust ppl other races or deicde to GENERALIZE their experience to ALL members of that race.
But ok let's say someone was beaten by a white guy and decides ALL whites are violent and bad. That might happen thats true.
What you saying though is that thousands of whites SUDDENLY turn racist BECAUSE someone who is "only" half white was elected.
Maybe the fact that their race itself has become so "Black-loving" so they voted a Negro in office
would lead them to hate all other races that changed the ways of Whites to vote for someone other than Obama.
It's easy to see the race if they're purely that race, but when they're mixed with a slight amount of genetics from another race - it's harder.
"Are you denying this?"
. But that doesn't mean that one race is made up of only other races mixed. Where did anybody say that? And does it matter?
Yeah, so what?
Still, let's assume that Lewontin's 15% solution is widely applicable. That's like going to a casino that has Amerind and Negro croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Amerind croupiers and black for the Black croupiers -- pretty useful information, huh?
QED
I love my race and want it to survive, what's so bad about that?
I don't want them to mix because that is destruction of race
I have some friends who have great grandparents who are black. They are blonde blue eye and white. There's NO way to tell they have any black origin. If you don't believe in the drop rule then the white race "came back" in my buddys. So the white race did not "disappear" in them.
just like adding blue to yellow makes it a whole different color and can't be considered yellow anymore.
1. You can't be sure they did it because of their race unless they admitted to it.
2. Well, doctors treat different people of different races differently because they're different.
They'll give different medication and whatnot. Are they racist or trying to help their patient?
Just because there is more variation INSIDE of groups doesn't mean that race doesn't exist.
Try substituting other categories like "age:"
They don't turn racist in one day.
Speaking from experience?
It is just more obvious. People who are ALREADY racist and are mad about a black president are just more willing to just talk on WN. Frankly I'd rather they do that than start shooting blacks.
Frankly I'd rather they do that than start shooting blacks.
That you always seem pretty SURE of the race of ppl when I posted their images. Not much "moderation" in your claims.
"Very easy" is not a "moderate" claim
Here is some
The fact is that the MORE we are anyzing DNA the more it shows that that MORE variations are INSIDE thesame race than BETWEEN races. o even if we have BETTER Dna testing we will see MORE variations inside race thant between race.
You often hear that between-group racial differences only account for 15% of genetic variation. This number comes from a 1972 study by Richard Lewontin of 17 blood types, comparing variation between continental-scale races and between national-scale racial groups (e.g., Swedes vs. Italians). Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined -- the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.
I have provne many times they are.
This is what you claim but your reasons WHY show that its about racism and prejudice.
I don't want them to mix because that is destruction of race - just like adding blue to yellow makes it a whole different color and can't be considered yellow anymore.
- Beat up blacks because they are black. - Treat ppl differently according to race - Enact laws that treat people differently according to race the list is long
When you make a hypothesis and new data show that it is flse good science says to drop the hypothesis. So if ppl in the 19th century thought ppl were divisible scientifcally by race and then scientists from the 20th century get more data that shows MOST of genetic variation are INSIDE ppl of the some race they can change their hypothesis and say Ok then race is probably NOT that important. If some NEW data changes that then they can change their hypothesis again. You don't try to fit data to a given hypothesis. You get data and then you REVISE your hypothesis according to the data. Thats the way science works.
So if ppl in the 19th century thought ppl were divisible scientifcally by race and then scientists from the 20th century get more data that shows MOST of genetic variation are INSIDE ppl of the some race they can change their hypothesis and say Ok then race is probably NOT that important.
If some NEW data changes that then they can change their hypothesis again.
You don't try to fit data to a given hypothesis. You get data and then you REVISE your hypothesis according to the data.
Thats the way science works.
No single human category can account for a majority of all the many ways humans differ from each other. Try substituting other categories like "age:" "Most variation is within age groups, not between age groups." Yup, that's true, too. But, it doesn't mean that Age Does Not Exist.
If they didn't admit it they were part of the group that said "race is not a factor" they still voted 55% for obama.
Let's use the 1000 person example. 530 people voted and the rest voted McCain.
Out of those 530 people, 20% said they voted with race as a factor and 50% actually had race as a factor.
So, 106 Obama voters SAID race was a factor, but really 265 had it as a factor.
20% of McCain voters said that race was a factor - while 30% actually had it as a factor.
Therefore, 94 McCain voters SAID it was a factor, while 141 had it as a factor.
So, the stats would've showed in the polls: 53% voted Obama, 47% voted McCain
20% voted with race as a factor, 53% of them voted Obama (That's equivalent to the current stats)
But, if everyone told the TRUTH, 40.6% had race as a factor, and ~34% of them voted McCain. THAT would be the REAL results, and it WOULDN'T be equal.
That's what I'm saying could be what happened - though it's just hypothetically speaking.
It DOES NOT MATTER if they admit it or NOT since the results are the SAME. How many times I have to repeat it?
How many times I have to repeat it?
Do you understand the meaning of the question that was asked. They didn't ask "Did you vote Obama becuase he is black" They asked 1. Does race MATTERS to YOU? yes/no 2. Who did you vte for?
They asked
1. Does race MATTERS to YOU? yes/no 2. Who did you vte for?
If they did it correctly they asked a yes/no question. I don't know if the exit poll was done orally or written so I dont know if ppl "bubbled in" their answer. But if they filled out they had to fill out one answer OR the other. If they did not bbule in anything then the point is moot.
I don't know if the exit poll was done orally or written so I dont know if ppl "bubbled in" their answer. But if they filled out they had to fill out one answer OR the other. If they did not bbule in anything then the point is moot.
You still do not understand the % that voted Obama vs McCain is the SAME no matter whether they voted race as a factor or NOT.
No matter whether ppl lied or not or thought race was factor or not the RESULT was 55% Obama and 45% McCain
That's what you're assuming.
No one disputes thoseresults (exit poll)
Lets start from that Let's say that 22 Obama voters claim race was a factor but in fact it was 44. This is how things would break down. Group A Obama 55 Claim Actual 22 race factor44 race factor 55% 33 race not a factor11 race not factor 55% Because mCcain's results are 45% then the only to make it so is Group B McCain 45 Claim Actual 18 race factor36 race factor 45% 27 race not a factor9 race not a factor 45% Now if you CHANGE the actual numbers for McCain and say its 30 race factor 10 race not a factor then the results would NOT have been Obama 55% and mcCain 45% in the FIRST place. The only way to GET the 55 Obama/ 45 McCain result (which they GOT NO MATTER WHAT) is to have the SAME PROPORTION Obama to McCain The ONLY thing that changed from Claim to actual is the proportion between the ppl who calimed it was race factor or not in EACH camp. In Obama camp it changed from 22 race factr/33 race not factor to 44 race factor / 11 race not factor. In McCain camp it changed from 18 race factor/27 race not factor to 36 race factor/ 9 race not factor/ But as far the proportion Obama to McCain NOTHING changed. this was the results given. The question on who they voted for was done INDEPENDENT from the question about race as a factor. SO even if ppl LIED NOTHING changed in the claim.
Group A Obama 55 Claim Actual 22 race factor44 race factor 55% 33 race not a factor11 race not factor 55%
Because mCcain's results are 45% then the only to make it so is
Group B McCain 45 Claim Actual 18 race factor36 race factor 45% 27 race not a factor9 race not a factor 45%
Now if you CHANGE the actual numbers for McCain and say its
30 race factor 10 race not a factor
then the results would NOT have been Obama 55% and mcCain 45% in the FIRST place. The only way to GET the 55 Obama/ 45 McCain result (which they GOT NO MATTER WHAT) is to have the SAME PROPORTION Obama to McCain
The ONLY thing that changed from Claim to actual is the proportion between the ppl who calimed it was race factor or not in EACH camp.
In Obama camp it changed from 22 race factr/33 race not factor to 44 race factor / 11 race not factor.
In McCain camp it changed from 18 race factor/27 race not factor to 36 race factor/ 9 race not factor/
But as far the proportion Obama to McCain NOTHING changed. this was the results given. The question on who they voted for was done INDEPENDENT from the question about race as a factor.
SO even if ppl LIED NOTHING changed in the claim.
Again the percentage iin both cases was 55% Obama and 45% McCain. That WAS the result no matter what ppl claimed
The result were the SAME in PROPORTIOn yeah. Not in ABSOLUTE.
But the 55% Obama result STAYED in BOTH cases.
Good. Then BASED on those RESULTS Race was actually NOT a factor NO MATTER what ppl claimed.
It could have been 100% of Obama lying about it the claim would still be true from the Stats!!!
If 100% of Obama supporters voted due to race, the results would be A LOT different (implying that 20% of McCain supporters voted racially)
WHAT would not be proportional?
It is NOT a PROOF it is a RESULT. The RESULT was that 55% were for Obama and 45% were for McCain. (In that article) For those RESULTS to true the % of the oBama who lied has to be in proportion to the % Mccain ppl who lied. As I said if the results had beeen DIFFERNE THEN yes you would be correct. Also if the RESULTS are NOT true at all then you would be correct. But BASED on those results Race was not a factor;
The RESULT was that 55% were for Obama and 45% were for McCain. (In that article)
For those RESULTS to true the % of the oBama who lied has to be in proportion to the % Mccain ppl who lied.
As I said if the results had beeen DIFFERNE THEN yes you would be correct.
Also if the RESULTS are NOT true at all then you would be correct.
But BASED on those results Race was not a factor;
Which is what I've been saying.
If 100% of Obama supporters voted because of race, and 20% of McCain supporters did - would the results be (of the race poll) 53 - 47? No, simple math would say they wouldn't be.
But you know who is the head of stormfron t and you read all the stats in past few days and you can talk about what ppl say here and there.
I am sure some of them did that too. still no proof that thise means rcism is rising in one day.
Are people born racist?
You're either racist or you're not - it only takes one minute to become racist.
Well, there seems to be more White "Racism" in the air since that day.
What does that have anything to do with it?
It's very easy to tell the race of somone that isn't mixed just by seeing them. Are you denying this?
Proof?
Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent , and only 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.
If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Really, Jakelong, the best DNA testing out there is still inaccurate.
That doesn't mean they are.
I simply want Whites to continue to live.
What can someone do that proves they're racist? Give a few examples if you can.
Are you saying science changes when people have different ideas of race?
Okay, what if 1/2 the people that had race as a factor that voted Obama didn't admit to it?
How do you know how many people had race as a factor and didn't admit it?
Wait, why would someone say race mattered when it didn't?
And if race DID NOT MATTER to group a - they wouldn't be put in group B just because they bubbled it in on the ballot.
Now, 20% of Group A said race was a factor. In reality, 40% of them thought it was a factor. 20% of Group B said race was a factor. In reality, 30% of them thought it was a factor.
Lets start from that Let's say that 22 Obama voters claim race was a factor but in fact it was 44. This is how things would break down.
the percentage of people that said that and voted Obama would be higher than 60%.
But you're implying that everything is proportional - liars to admitters in particular.
That would make the 53% rise.
I agreed every time.
it wouldn't be proportional.
If they LIED about wether race was a factor - there is NO PROOF AT ALL that the same percentage of McCain supporters lied compared to the Obama supporters.
I've told you many times I don't go to Stormfront regularly.
You can just go to davidduke.com...
You mean they turn racist in JUST ONE day! I really like the stuff you smoke. Must be real good.
For making race relations worse. Funny how you think race relations are suddenly worse in one day because the nation elected a mixed preident who has said that this is not white American or a black america but a united states of america.
Funny how you think race relations are suddenly worse in one day because the nation elected a mixed preident who has said that this is not white American or a black america but a united states of america.
You haven't been too "moderate on race so far
we use clusters but the MORE sophisticated the genetics tests are the more they show that the difference from one group to the next is just a variation and not a sudden jump.
Really, Jakelong, the best DNA testing out there is still inaccurate. AncestrybyDNA actually says anything lower than 10% may not even be true.
Most people here agree that your entire thinking is based on racist reasons.
What reasons are they? I simply want Whites to continue to live.
I can know that people are racist from what they do and what they say. Usually what they do is more telling but what they say helps too.
For those who are obsessed with race yeah.
Because that was NOT really the way the question was asked.
I don't but if the people who say YES give the SAME results in PROPORTION as the ppl who say no then who cares?
Do you read minds?
No Let say Group A = People who claim is does not matter Let say Group B = people who claim it does matter Let say Group A = 100 people Let say Group B = 50 people If group A has a bunch of ppl who lie, say 70 of them (thats 70% of error) What does it mean? It means that those 70 guys really are part of Group B. But 55% of Group A voted for Obama and 55% of Group B ALSO voted for Obama So whether they are counted as part of group A or Group B those 70 guys still voted for or against Obama in the SAME proportion. So it DOES NOT matter which group they really belong to. The only way you can be worried is if the % in group A are different from Group B
Let say Group A = People who claim is does not matter
Let say Group B = people who claim it does matter
Let say Group A = 100 people Let say Group B = 50 people
If group A has a bunch of ppl who lie, say 70 of them (thats 70% of error)
What does it mean? It means that those 70 guys really are part of Group B.
But 55% of Group A voted for Obama and 55% of Group B ALSO voted for Obama
So whether they are counted as part of group A or Group B those 70 guys still voted for or against Obama in the SAME proportion.
So it DOES NOT matter which group they really belong to.
The only way you can be worried is if the % in group A are different from Group B
Look at this:
Group A voted Obama. Group B voted McCain.
For the ease of percentages, Group A is 60% of the population and B is 40%.
Therefore, the ballot results would say that race was a factor equally for both people (20% of people said it was a factor, 60% of them voted Obama).
But, if nobody lied - 35% of the voters would've said that race was a factor, and the percentage of people that said that and voted Obama would be higher than 60%.
Agin I am not. I say it does not matter becuase the % is the SAME.
Then its a pit. Either way you are still not getting it.
YOU don't understand that maybe 1/2 of the OBAMA supporters admitted it, but all of the McCain supporters did.
That would make the 53% rise. Again, it's all hypothetical...
Those who claimed race as a factor has the exact same % as those who did not.
Are you saying that the mere fact that they are lying makes them vote for or against Obama in different proportion?
Do you understand independent probabilty? You keep thinking that Question 1 is NECESSARILY correlated to question 5. The fact that the answers are the same means that question 1 is INDEPENDENT of question 5. Therefore question 1 is irrelevant and therefore it does not matter if people lied or not.
Do you understand independent probabilty? You keep thinking that Question 1 is NECESSARILY correlated to question 5.
The fact that the answers are the same means that question 1 is INDEPENDENT of question 5.
Therefore question 1 is irrelevant and therefore it does not matter if people lied or not.
If nobody lied - it could have turned out that 80% of people that voted race as a factor voted Obama.
We'll never know.
Do you go there everyday to get all your info?
Either way they did say that the reason for the problem was David Duke's obamanation broadcast. So using this as a "prrof" that racism is suddenly rising in one day is stupid. More like those who are ALREADY racist went to vent about "boohoohoo a negro is president!"
More like those who are ALREADY racist went to vent about "boohoohoo a negro is president!"
Maybe the election turned them racist - or maybe they AREN'T racist, just becoming WN's.
Blaming for what?
You can moderately tell the race of someone by looking at them - and their personality hints at it.
we haven't mapped each gene to each population yet.
The fact is - you tend to call people racist when there is no proof of them being that
You can't KNOW if they're racist.
Race isn't limited to phenotype, but it plays the major role in race.
What if 1/2 of the people that voted Obama because he's a Negro didn't admit it? THEN, the TRUE results would be different.
THEN, the TRUE results would be different.
We'll never know, but I'm surprised that you trust the "Honesty" of the average American.
I fully understand what you're saying Jakelong - and I thought it at first too. I'm saying that if enough people lied, the statistics would be incorrect.
I'm saying that if enough people lied, the statistics would be incorrect.
seem to have trouble understanding that you're putting your trust on the honesty of the average American.
No, it's NOT a circle.
Let's say that, in all actuality, 35% of voters had race as a factor. and, out of those 35%, 65% voted for Obama.
and, out of those 35%, 65% voted for Obama.
Don Black announced that it wasn't a DDOS attack (some people had the same idea as you) and they forced everyone to register to view the forums.
One of the members said it was probably a bunch of Negroes trying to spam the forum - but the mods (mods have to approve of new users' posts) said that it was almost all Whites that were AGAINST the "Obamanation."
Those who are ALREADY racist are storming stormfront to vent their stupid shit what do you expect. But sure in order to make sure racists are happy and stay happy we gotta keep the N*** down right?
But sure in order to make sure racists are happy and stay happy we gotta keep the N*** down right?
Who are you blamin those who are racists or those who simply voice their NON-racism? Oh yeah its easier to blame the non racists...
Oh yeah its easier to blame the non racists...
But you are quick to label ppl by teir race w/o knowing their genetic makeup.
I'm not "Quick to label" them either.
And genetic tests aren't advanced enough to tell the race of someone yet - we haven't mapped each gene to each population yet.
The fact is - you tend to call people racist when there is no proof of them being that - you can't SEE it. You can't KNOW if they're racist.
Race itself can be, somewhat, seen. Race isn't limited to phenotype, but it plays the major role in race.
The 1/2 who did not admit their real reason was counted as part of those who CLAIMED race was NOT an issue. WE saw that NO MATTER WHAT it was still the SAME proportion 55% Obama 45% McCain. IF THERE was a DIFFERENCE in proportiona between those who ADMITTED and those who DID NOT THEN you could say there a skew and its no proof. But the proportions are the SAME.
WE saw that NO MATTER WHAT it was still the SAME proportion 55% Obama 45% McCain.
IF THERE was a DIFFERENCE in proportiona between those who ADMITTED and those who DID NOT THEN you could say there a skew and its no proof.
But the proportions are the SAME.
I don't know HOW the poll was worded but from what the article said it was not "Do you vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black?" That would be much too skewed, It was more like Question 1. Is race important for you in making your decision yes/no Question 5. Who are you voting for as president? [List of candidates] They tally the results of those who voted Yes on Question 1 Found 55% for Obama for Question 5 No on Question 1 Found 55% for Obama for Question 5 Does not matter how many said yes or no on Question 1 the result on Question 5 was the same in proportion. So the answer to Question 1 was NOT a factor. It had NO effect on the answer to Question 5. So it does not matter who lied and who didn't on Question 1. IF those who voted yes on Q1 had 55% for Obama and those who voted no on Q1 had 45% for Obama THEN YES race WOULD be a factor EVEN if ppl lied about it. And yes in that case it would be important to worry about how many lied. Or at least we can't make the claim that race was not an issue no matter what ppl said. But thats NOT the case here. The porportions WERE the SAME Get it now?
"Do you vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black?" That would be much too skewed,
It was more like
Question 1. Is race important for you in making your decision yes/no
Question 5. Who are you voting for as president? [List of candidates]
They tally the results of those who voted
Yes on Question 1 Found 55% for Obama for Question 5 No on Question 1 Found 55% for Obama for Question 5
Does not matter how many said yes or no on Question 1 the result on Question 5 was the same in proportion.
So the answer to Question 1 was NOT a factor. It had NO effect on the answer to Question 5.
So it does not matter who lied and who didn't on Question 1.
IF those who voted yes on Q1 had 55% for Obama and those who voted no on Q1 had 45% for Obama
THEN YES race WOULD be a factor EVEN if ppl lied about it. And yes in that case it would be important to worry about how many lied. Or at least we can't make the claim that race was not an issue no matter what ppl said.
But thats NOT the case here. The porportions WERE the SAME
Get it now?
I'm saying that if enough people lied, the statistics would be incorrect. You don't know if the proportion of liars is equal to the proportion of truth-tellers.
Maybe 1/2 of the people that voted Obama because he was Black didn't admit it (hypothetically speaking). Then, the results are incorrect. The same can be said for McCain voters too.
You seem to have trouble understanding what they mean though.
And the people that ADMITTED NOT to be influenced by race voted the same! Those who DID NOT ADMIT to be influenced ADMITTED by default to NOT be influenced. Either way the result is the same so you're just going in circles again.
Those who DID NOT ADMIT to be influenced ADMITTED by default to NOT be influenced.
Either way the result is the same so you're just going in circles again.
You seem to not understand that maybe a lot of people lied, and the proportion doesn't necessarily hold true for each candidate and his lying supporters.
Let's say that, in all actuality, 35% of voters had race as a factor.
That would be unequal.
Now, those could be 100% true (I doubt they are) but it's a possibility.
But if that's how it went, a large portion of Obama supporters that voted racially LIED ON THEIR BALLOT - and (in my example) the McCain supporters didn't lie as much.
Oh about your silly theory about stormfront this is prolly what happened David duke was having a webcast on stormfront called Obamanation on Nov 6 so a bunch of ppl prolly joined in for the lolz. It jammed the site which is really even more lolz. I also bet the place was slammed by denial of service attacks.
David duke was having a webcast on stormfront called Obamanation on Nov 6 so a bunch of ppl prolly joined in for the lolz. It jammed the site which is really even more lolz.
I also bet the place was slammed by denial of service attacks.
And that's why people are "Storming" into Stormfront giving it more traffic than ever before. The same on "White Power". KKK looks the same as "White Power"
KKK looks the same as "White Power"
Pretty improving on the race relations - don't ya think?
I'm not the one labeling people "Racist" though - as if I know all of their thoughts.
If 1/2 of the people that voted Obama because he's Black didn't admit it (hypothetically speaking) - would they STILL be the same?
But the proportions are the SAME. --------------------------------------
I don't know HOW the poll was worded but from what the article said it was not
I KNOW what the stats said...
The people that ADMITTED to be influenced by race voted the same.
A White Supremacist (at least one) voted for Obama because he thinks that if McCain got elected it would've been the largest "Chimp-out" ever.
Thats why ppl all races were dancing in the street when Obama got elected?
Check out all the new Stormfront members - if it doesn't crash again.
You are usally the one declaring who is this race or who is that race. So you are more into labelling.
If they chose not to bubble it, they STILL voted exaclty the same in proportion as Obama. So overall NOT a factor as far as the results are.
So overall NOT a factor as far as the results are.
No it does NOT matter if they did or not since the results were the SAME.
Man you really dont get it.
I wasn't trying to "prove" that. I said the results were not INFLUENCED by race factor since ppl who claimed to care voted the same as ppl who didn't care.
Keyword:ADMITTED
Actually being racist make it 100% sure that race matters to them. How they vote is a differnt thing but I bet it influences how they vote. But if they decide to vote AGAINST their racist idea its a good thing in fact. There is a differenece between racist belief and racist action I grant you.
But if they decide to vote AGAINST their racist idea its a good thing in fact.
There is a differenece between racist belief and racist action I grant you.
In all reality, I think race relations are getting worse.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're the master of racism and human attitudes Jakelong.
It could merely be a coincidence, or the most racial voters chose not to bubble in the "I voted racially" bubble.
Again, you're insisting that every told the exact truth.
What you CAN say is that 53% of the people that ADMITTED that race was a factor voted Obama.
But the point is that 55% of those who said it was NOT a factor voted the same.
So what does it matter if they lied or not. The result was the SAME!!!
I don't believe everyone would admit to it
"prove" that one president (be it McCain or Obama) didn't get in because of his race.
I don't believe that being racist makes you 100% sure that you will vote racially.
Nobody really believe all racism will stop just because Obama is president, What it is is saying that its a sign that things are changing and obstacles have been removed. Its a mind thing mostly.
From ppl who are ALREADY racist and didn't know it usually.
Yes it is.
Since its all about "admitting the point is moot. The FACT is 55% of ppl who said it matterd voted FOR obama 55% of those who said it didn't matter ALSO voted for Obama. So race was NOT a factor in the results overall. Why? Because if it doesn't change the vote one or another then its NOT really a facotr OVERALL. Obviously for some ppl it was a factor (those who said it mattered)
55% of ppl who said it matterd voted FOR obama
55% of those who said it didn't matter ALSO voted for Obama.
So race was NOT a factor in the results overall. Why? Because if it doesn't change the vote one or another then its NOT really a facotr OVERALL.
Obviously for some ppl it was a factor (those who said it mattered)
47% of people that said race relations would "Get better" - 70% of them voted Obama. That's not 53%, is it?
What you CAN say is that 53% of the people that ADMITTED that race was a factor voted Obama. Remember, 19% of Americans said that it was a factor, 9% of them saying it was an important one.
In my opinion, these are a bit off - I don't believe everyone would admit to it - precisely to "prove" that one president (be it McCain or Obama) didn't get in because of his race.
That being racist is GURANTEED to make ppl vote racially. But voting racially don't mean you racist. Got problem reading?
Got problem reading?
But I do agree, as I've said, voting racially doesn't make you racist, and many non-racists voted racially.
679 users online 
222949 members 1390 active today Advertise Here
679 users online 222949 members 1390 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
