Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics  (Read 1866156 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
No, no, I get that I mean I don't vote Republican.

But it's not the same but I think you can maybe relate, my family in Flint doesn't seen why they'd ever not vote Democrat. And as much as I hate the Republicans it's about saying "don't take me for granted."

The funny* part being my Flint family is quite viciously racist and hates Obama, (the evangelical Republican part of my family hates my Flint area uncle showing his Obama eating KFC on the whitehouse lawn app every family shindig) but loves Democrats because they're Union. So they'll vote Romney, but down-ticket Democrat to the letter.

*Not really, I know Flint.

And I don't want to say there's reason to vote Republican for blacks or anyone, but I think there is opportunity there. Make Democrats the Stuff White People Like party.

Himu

  • Senior Member
I'd much rather have electoral reform than that.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
I'd much rather have electoral reform than that.
You want to have electoral reform? Let's get our dicks out and talk.

I was just lamenting the state we're in. Not celebrating it.

Himu

  • Senior Member
I got my machete, just in case a revolution starts.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
I got my machete, just in case a revolution starts.
Let me know where to meet you.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Only if you promise to read The Soul of Man under Socialism.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Only if you promise to read The Soul of Man under Socialism.
I will.

Grant me the Wiki entry for now. Until I read it all.

Kroptokin and Bakunin are my bros for a bit.

EDIT: lol, didn't notice Kroptokin in this initially
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 11:16:51 AM by benjipwns »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Only if you promise to read The Soul of Man under Socialism.
I will.

Grant me the Wiki entry for now. Until I read it all.

Kroptokin and Bakunin are my bros for a bit.

EDIT: lol, didn't notice Kroptokin in this initially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_under_Socialism
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Yeah, I've got that, I want to read it.


benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
 :lol I just meant I was going to read it probably this week, cheers for the link though

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
I think PDark has the accuracy here. But it is twisted in a minor aspect.

There's no reason that blacks and hispanics should vote for the Democrats except for the hostility the GOP shows. (Unless we of course assume that people of a race are all the same.)

I've shown my love for an old Gdub speech, but I do think that's still important. And I have to question why blacks vote lockstep for Democrats. I've read all the explanations, I don't buy it. You aren't relevant if you're lockstep for a party.

The GOP can win if they get 40% hispanic and it's why they dance around immigration. And why Rubio even exists.

Theoretically, say there is a black revolt and they vote 50/50 Repub on social issues, vouchers, etc. Would the Democrats not come running to offer them more than feeble control over their urban centers? What power bloc would they get from bucking the party and saying don't take us for granted?

What do you lose in a cycle?
What?

Black people overwhelmingly support nearly every aspect of the democrat platform, from social programs/assistance to tax issues. The only aspect many black voters are split on are social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

Historically black people have voted for whoever was on their side. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement, the democrat party has been on their side moreso than republicans, by a large margin. Likewise Hispanics tend to be on the side of the party that benefits them the most socially and economically, despite differences on social issues.

It's white working class and non-college whites who haven't gotten the memo in terms of voting in your best interest economically.
010

Barry Egan

  • The neurotic is nailed to the cross of his fiction.
  • Senior Member
This conversation coincides perfectly with a particularly bad set of optics for the Romney campaign.

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
 :-\ read some comments at that link
Tonya


Mandark

  • Icon
Is the threat of defecting actually effective, though?  I understand the logic behind it, but I'm not sure it works in practice.  That's putting aside the difficulty in getting black people together and saying "okay, let's vote at least half for the GOP for one midterm cycle, just to throw a scare into the Dems.  But don't tell the white liberals about it, cause it won't work unless it's credible."

I mean, I've asked my black friends about what goes on at their meetings, but I always assumed that was a joke and they don't actually have secret national pow-wows where they choose which comedian gets the fatsuit next.



Himu: You say you want vote reform, presumably so more parties would be competitive and people would be able to choose a better individual fit rather than be shoehorned into one of the duopoly.  It's a nice thought, but after the election you'd still need a governing coalition with >50%.  Even if your party had a plurality they'd have to compromise and share power with other factions.

Which is basically what's already happening in the two-party system, only in that case you know up front who will be in your caucus.  More than a few voters supported the Lib Dems in the last national UK election, for example, only to feel betrayed when they formed a government with the Tories.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
If Obama started advocating multiple policies that harm African Americans, he would have to deal with a backlash. That doesn't mean black people would vote for Romney, but enthusiasm would certainly decrease. Typically, groups tend to express their discontent by withholding their vote. Doesn't mean they're going to vote for the other guy, but they just might stay home.  We saw a lot of this with Romney and hardcore evangelicals upset about his Mormonism and previous support for abortion. A few years ago Harold Ford Jr. pissed off black people and gay people while running for a NY senate seat, look how that turned out.

I've talked to black people upset about Obama snubbing the NAACP this year for instance, or his alleged refusal to address "black issues" but most will still be voting for him for obvious reasons.

With Hispanics, Obama is based jesus right now; which goes back to the point about voting for people who benefit your interests. On a side note I'm kind of surprised Obama never learned to speak Spanish during his community organizing days.
010

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member



This is interesting, I think black voter turnout is going to plateu soon. That and fact that they vote in lockstep with democrats could be  the reason why republicans don't feel a need to appeal to them.

The "white" elephant in the room is Hispanics. They are becoming larger and larger and their voter turnout is still very low. Combined with the fact that they're really only liberal on immigration, and I could see the Republicans completely giving up on immigration in order to get those votes

Obviously, Romney choosing Rubio as VP will set back republicans for several years. What with Rubio being Cuban and against the DREAM act.

But for now, blacks just aren't worth the effort for Republican politicians.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
I'd imagine republicans have no idea why a Cuban telling all Hispanics "sorry, no path to citizenship for you" is a bad thing

Who knows, maybe the next generation of Hispanics will see themselves as white before Hispanic.
010

Himu

  • Senior Member
Who knows, maybe the next generation of Hispanics will see themselves as white before Hispanic.

Haha not happening
IYKYK

Mupepe

  • Icon
Who knows, maybe the next generation of Hispanics will see themselves as white before Hispanic.

Haha not happening
You'd be surprised how many self loathing hispanics there are. 

Mandark

  • Icon
Yeah, ethnicity's malleable, man.  Catholic immigrants used to not be white by a lot of people's reckoning, now they're only Irish during St. Patty's day and Italian during the World Cup.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Ah, so the hispanic majority that will occur in half a century will be considered "white" in another century. Haha. :lol
IYKYK

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Ah, so the hispanic majority that will occur in half a century will be considered "white" in another century. Haha. :lol

Probably. I wish I could find the chart from late 1800s New York Times showing the "appearance" of like 48 different races, 44 of which we would today called "white."
乱学者

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
I look forward to a simpler time in the future when everyone is either a member of the tribe of Kid or the tribe of Play
010

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
The lines are being blurred for Hispanics now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States

Quote
Most persons considered White today might not have been considered White at some point in U.S. history. Among those not considered white by some people at some time in American history are the Irish, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Slavs, Greeks, Welsh and many other peoples who were not English. However, legally all these groups were caucasian.[10]

Quote
On the 2000 Census form, race and ethnicity are distinct questions. A respondent who checks the "Hispanic or Latino" ethnicity box must also check one or more of the five official race categories. Of the over 35 million Hispanics or Latinos in the 2000 Census, a plurality of 48.6% identified as "White-Hispanic," 48.2% identified as "Hispanic-Hispanic" (most of whom are presumed to be mestizos), and the remaining 3.2% identified as "black-Hispanic."
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 09:08:20 PM by The Experiment »
🍆🍆

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
010

HyperZoneWasAwesome

  • HastilyChosenUsername
  • Senior Member
my gut tells me the only reason Romney was even there was to further his cred with white people so he could further the narrative of "us against them".

which is, of course, a cynical, disgusting, and extremely evil way to win support by further dividing the country and fanning racial flames.  But since when do Republicans do that kind of thing?

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
I absolutely, 110% believe that Romney's NAACP speech today was designed to draw boos from the crowd in order to bolster his support amongst crazy white folk.
yar

tiesto

  • ルカルカ★ナイトフィーバー
  • Senior Member
OH SNAP, some good ol fashioned Republican "humor":

^_^

Mupepe

  • Icon
Ah, so the hispanic majority that will occur in half a century will be considered "white" in another century. Haha. :lol
My wife identifies culturally as pretty white.  I doubt my children will have much connection to hispanic culture and will probably be checking "Caucasian" on the forms they fill out.  I'm 1/2 hispanic but I'm so far from them culturally that I never check the Latino box on forms.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
I absolutely, 110% believe that Romney's NAACP speech today was designed to draw boos from the crowd in order to bolster his support amongst crazy white folk.

Mitt's got a ton of black support on the DL.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-i-have-secret-black-supporters-video.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
©@©™

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
he needs to not get caught up with his hook up
Tonya

tiesto

  • ルカルカ★ナイトフィーバー
  • Senior Member
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/12/single-women/

Quote
In 2008, single women supported Barack Obama by a measurable 70% to 29% margin.  There was a 44-point difference between how single women voted compared to married women (more on that in a minute).  Published reports in 2008 went as far as to say that if single women hadn’t overwhelmingly supported Obama the way they did, the results of the election would have looked very different.

Four years later … it doesn’t look like much as changed.  The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that Obama is leading Romney among single women by almost a 2- 1 advantage, 60 percent to 31 percent.

The reason is so simple.  It boils down to one word: security.  Single women vote for the candidate who will create more government programs for them to rely upon.  They don’t have a husband to rely on --- so the government becomes their husband and provider.  Not really all that hard to figure out.

Stupid article, isn't it rather single women vote for Democrats because many Republicans want to strip away their rights and legislate their vaginas?

Hmm... perhaps I should volunteer at the Democratic committee and meet some single liberal women!
^_^

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
lol at that last  line. that's quite a reach.
©ZH

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/12/single-women/

Quote
In 2008, single women supported Barack Obama by a measurable 70% to 29% margin.  There was a 44-point difference between how single women voted compared to married women (more on that in a minute).  Published reports in 2008 went as far as to say that if single women hadn’t overwhelmingly supported Obama the way they did, the results of the election would have looked very different.

Four years later … it doesn’t look like much as changed.  The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that Obama is leading Romney among single women by almost a 2- 1 advantage, 60 percent to 31 percent.

The reason is so simple.  It boils down to one word: security.  Single women vote for the candidate who will create more government programs for them to rely upon.  They don’t have a husband to rely on --- so the government becomes their husband and provider.  Not really all that hard to figure out.

Stupid article, isn't it rather single women vote for Democrats because many Republicans want to strip away their rights and legislate their vaginas?

Hmm... perhaps I should volunteer at the Democratic committee and meet some single liberal women!

Heh. You could just as insultingly pull the assumption out of your ass that the reason why married women tend to vote more Republican is because they just do what their husband providers tell them to do.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
I wrote a new article for them:

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/joez-nuze/2012/jul/13/black-people/

Quote
In 2008, black people supported Barack Obama by a measurable 95% to 4% margin.  There was a 51-point difference between how black people voted compared to white people (more on that in a minute).  Published reports in 2008 went as far as to say that if black people hadn’t overwhelmingly supported Obama the way they did, the results of the election would have looked very different.

Four years later … it doesn’t look like much as changed.  The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that Obama is leading Romney among black people by a 46 - 1 advantage, 92 percent to 2 percent.

The reason is so simple.  It boils down to one word: bootstraps. Black people vote Democrat because they're lazy and want a handout from the government. Not really all that hard to figure out.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 05:35:59 PM by Joe Molotov® EDGE™ »
©@©™

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Drudge saying Condi Rice is currently the front runner for VP

pro choice, not married...yea right
010

Yeti

  • Hail Hydra
  • Senior Member
Drudge saying Condi Rice is currently the front runner for VP

pro choice, not married...yea right

But she's "a lady" AND she's "a black", so both of those two groups will HAVE to vote Republican now! :spin
WDW

Barry Egan

  • The neurotic is nailed to the cross of his fiction.
  • Senior Member
The Boston Globe article that came out today is about 5 seconds away from becoming a serious hazard to the Romney campaign. I think this Condi leak is just a last ditch attempt to change the direction of the discourse.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Amazing. :lol
dog

Atramental

  • 🧘‍♂️
  • Senior Member
Niiiice.


Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Romney may be out of the woods on this
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-bain-capital-sankaty-fortune-inactive.php?ref=fpb

Still, the entire thing has been handled so poorly by Romney's camp. No wonder they floated the story about an unmarried, pro choice black woman possibly being VP
010

Barry Egan

  • The neurotic is nailed to the cross of his fiction.
  • Senior Member
The absolute best narrative Romney can sculpt out of this is that he was payed a 6 figure salary for 2-3 years while off doing something completely unrelated to the job.  That image wouldn't look good on any candidate, but especially one who is basically campaigning on the back of that private sector experience.

Also, there appears to be documentation supporting both narratives about whether or not he had an active roll in the company. This story could really have legs.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 10:21:58 PM by Barry Egan »

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Also as acting CEO he was still responsible for the company. If they had fucked something up royally, his ass would be brought up regardless of whether he was involved in decision making. This whole thing flies in the face of the general justification of CEO salaries. They are the company, if things go bad they get blamed, if things go well they get credit.
010

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
I'd really like to see a "both sides do it" equivalency piece on this

"Obama said he had stopped community organizing in order to run for State Senate, but records show he was VOLUNTEERING WEEKLY."
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
"Why doesn't Obama take responsibility for whoever said he was Kenyan while promoting his book?"

at least, that's what to expect on GAF
010

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Helping BLACK PEOPLE

Mandark

  • Icon
I'd really like to see a "both sides do it" equivalency piece on this

"Obama said he had stopped community organizing in order to run for State Senate, but records show he was VOLUNTEERING WEEKLY."

"You can't have an equivalent case because Obama never had to work in the private sector." :smug



spoiler (click to show/hide)
Do you put emoticons inside or outside quotes?  Where's Van Cruncheon, I need a ruling from the Bore style guide on this.

edit: amended
[close]
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 01:01:09 AM by Mandark »

Mandark

  • Icon
Actually, the equivalent would probably be the complaint that Obama described himself as a professor at the U of Chicago, when in fact he didn't have tenure and was really just some dude who taught students about constitutional law.

If someone actually brings that up to try to make a serious comparison, I'm awarding myself 20 points.

Mandark

  • Icon
"Why doesn't Obama take responsibility for whoever said he was Kenyan while promoting his book?"

at least, that's what to expect on GAF

Plagiarist.


Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
I'd really like to see a "both sides do it" equivalency piece on this

"Obama said he had stopped community organizing in order to run for State Senate, but records show he was VOLUNTEERING WEEKLY."

"You can't have an equivalent case because Obama never had to work in the private sector. :smug"



spoiler (click to show/hide)
Do you put emoticons inside or outside quotes?  Where's Van Cruncheon, I need a ruling from the Bore style guide on this.
[close]

outside.
duc

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
"Why doesn't Obama take responsibility for whoever said he was Kenyan while promoting his book?"

at least, that's what to expect on GAF

Plagiarist.

A GAFer has actually used that argument non-ironically
010

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-demands-an-apology-from-president-obama

Quote
Mitt Romney Demands an Apology from President Obama
posted by PAUL CONSTANT on FRI, JUL 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM
The five Mitt Romney interviews just went live all at once, and the internet is just starting to digest them. Time for a live-Slog!

3:14 PM: Romney has announced that he is only going to release two years' worth of tax returns, saying he has complied with the law. He says, "That's all that's necessary for people to understand something about my finances."

3:15 PM: Sounds like Romney's official line on the Bain deal is that he had no role in Bain Capital after 1999, but he was still a shareholder. This doesn't explain those SEC filings.

3:18 PM: Here's Romney demanding that President Obama apologize for Obama surrogate Stephanie Cutter suggesting that Romney committed a felony:

Asked by Crawford whether he believes Mr. Obama owes him an apology for Cutter's remarks, Romney said, "Absolutely - my goodness!
"What kind of president would have a campaign that says something like that about the nominee of another party?" Romney said. "This is reckless and absurd on his part, and it's something that's beneath his dignity. I hope he recognizes that even fellow Democrats have said that.
"Look - the president needs to talk about the direction he'd take the country, and stop these kinds of ads and attacks that are so disparate from what the American people want to talk about," Romney concluded, adding later that the president "has demeaned the leadership which he should be bringing to this country."

Sounds like a pretty weak response.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 06:35:56 PM by Mr. Gundam »
野球

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Mitt Romney: Complying with the law and doing the absolute minimum required of him to be president.
©@©™

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
010

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member

holy shit  :lol

Are democrats running Obama's ad campaign, or did he hire Bush's 2004 folks? That's just brutal
010

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Since the Fast and Furious stuff didn't really materialize into much, maybe they can talk about Bill Ayers and "Chicago politics" again.
🍆🍆