Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 2 of 94 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 7039
  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    My completely amateur picks for republican nom chances are Bush, Walker, Paul, Rubio, in that order.

    (edit, with all four being over 10% likely to be nommed)
    I think it's Bush all day but I agree with the order. Probably put Christie or Carson. I can't wait for the trainwrecks that these debates are going to be. Such high quality entertainment is coming our way!
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  2. #77
    The country needs President Carson.
  3. #78
    Fiorina would crush any Democrat.
  4. #79
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,042
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I'm gonna ride both Sanders and Trump for the f of it til I have to actually choose.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  5. #80
    I think most people polling for Trump won't vote for him, but most polling for Bernie will.
  6. #81
    The establishment wisdom that Carson could never be the nominee is so so wrong. This could easily happen: many Trump supporters vote for Carson in Iowa and he gets a plurality of the social conservative and anti-establishment vote. The media is unable to talk negatively about a black person, so nobody attacks him except for reasons other than "unelectable", which just makes him more attractive to most voters. Then he crushes New Hampshire if he engages door-to-door, townhall personable tactics. Then he crushes South Carolina by way of an aura of revolution and getting the social conservative vote as well as a uniquely increased turnout of black vote.

    The stage is seriously ripe for Carson to win. The left has created this dynamic since they turn everything into race. A well-performing black person coming from the right would annihilate anything the left could muster.
  7. #82
    It can't be understated how hugely a Carson nomination would break the Democratic coalition. The key to Democrats isn't Mexicans, not labor, not social liberals, not even city-dwellers. It's blacks, all because of their near 1/1 turnout/vote for Democrats and their unique electoral regions. Republicans can cut into the Hispanic vote a bunch yet still lose presidential elections, but if they cut into the black vote just a little bit, the Democrats would lose some hard blue states in the Midwest and Northeast.

    I'm afraid of social conservatism, but goddamn I'm afraid of the social and economic engineering of the left too. A Carson presidency might be the best thing for the country if it broke the incentive for the Democrats to continually move left because the black vote thinks of the right as its enemy.
  8. #83
    Examining the primary schedule, Trump really could win this. There's a huge early bloc of southern and Appalachian states unlike normal. Most candidates will stay in up till then, and nobody plays particularly well there, except Trump. If Carson worked real hard, I think he could do well there. I have no clue what Walker's appeal, or Cruz's appeal will be.

    Gonna suck if the story of this election is that the establishment backed Bush too long. They need to move to Walker. But the Bushes have always been the establishment's favorite sons, even when Reagan won. I suspect a President Jeb would be closer to a Reaganite than the other Bushes, but if the GOP wants a Reaganesque revolution, it needs to nominate somebody like Walker. Trump's Perotness can only win in a perfect storm due to his low (yet high enough) vote ceiling.

    Walker is the only person the establishment likes enough that can beat Trump. The base is 1980-level strong and pissed off, and it's not going to vote for Bush, Kasich, Christie, or even Rubio.
  9. #84
    Wuf, who do you vote for if both wildcards get the nomination and we have a Trump vs Sanders general election?
  10. #85
    Trump. I don't support any of Sanders' political philosophies.

    I hate Trump's immigration and trade policies, but I don't think his platform would stay the same if he won the office. For example, he favors tariffs big time, but the GOP and economists are so against them that I think he would adopt the mainstream free trade view. On immigration, I prefer open borders, but that's not going to happen. After that, I prefer tight borders and a crackdown on criminal actions. What we have going now is the worst type of situation. Trump either already holds or would adopt economic policies I like and I think it's very unlikely he would adopt the social conservatism I don't like.

    If Trump wins, it would partially be through a popular narrative that I agree with (the system is full of sellouts and do-nothings), but a Sanders win would be through a popular narrative that wholly disagree with (the system is corrupted by the pursuit of wealth).

    That said, if Sanders became president, he'd get Carter'd so hard in 2020. Hell I think Hillary would get Carter'd too.
  11. #86
    You're just assuming he's joking about or otherwise could be convinced of the absurdity of his foreign policy?

    How I see it-- Sanders gets gridlocked by congress for four years, and then we get a new(ish) field of candidates. Trump-- well, Trump might invade Venezuela and bomb North Korea.

    I'm looking at it less from a "which policies are preferable" and instead from a "which outcome is preferable?"
  12. #87
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Inb4 trump calls Putin a loser
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You're just assuming he's joking about or otherwise could be convinced of the absurdity of his foreign policy?
    I don't think he's joking. Trade is probably the most solid mainstay between both parties. Even if Trump wholeheartedly believes in those 25% tariffs, I think he would get overruled. Nobody supports that from any aspect of either parties except a small fringe.

    How I see it-- Sanders gets gridlocked by congress for four years, and then we get a new(ish) field of candidates. Trump-- well, Trump might invade Venezuela and bomb North Korea.
    I get the sentiment. I don't think invasion would be the avenue though. I don't think wielding great military force comes easy to those who are not statesmen. It's probably among the last considerations for people whose lives have been like Trump's, while it is a standard consideration for people who tend to pursue legal power. That's just my guess though.

    I think a kind of fuckup that would come by way of Trump would be either major gridlock due to butting heads so much or that he may be extremely narcissistic and make some decisions based on his ego more than the statesman who lives by the party platform.

    That said, I don't think he would be a disaster the way the media makes out. Mainstream views are afraid of independent candidates, for whatever reason. You almost don't know what you're gonna get when a candidate is a cult of personality first, party man second. I suspect Trump would be no less ridiculous than a Perot presidency, of which I have no clue how ridiculous (or not) it would have been.
  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Inb4 trump calls Putin a loser
    President Trump may be worth just for the hoots and hollers.
  15. #90
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    13,463
    Location
    North Carolina
    The Trump truth train just keeps on rolling.
  16. #91
    What do you think the Trump Truth Train is?
  17. #92
    Trump could be a great president if for no reason other than his eschewing of political correctness. PC isn't the worst thing there ever was, but it's a giant spoke in the wheel of problem solving. Things need to be called what they are before they can be fixed. PC extremism creates perpetual victims that walk all over everybody else.
  18. #93
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Location
    Finding my game
    I think Trump could be better than any of the rest. Sure, he's a batshit crazy selfish warmongering douchebag, but hey, who isn't? At least he'd get the least-likely-to-be-corrupt nomination since he's already loaded, which also means he has no need to suck Koch, unlike the rest of them.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  19. #94
    Trump probably can't win because of his seemingly already peaked low ceiling. He could win all the early contests, but unless perceptions about him change, as the field dwindles, his opponents will pick up most of the remaining votes. He could probably win the four early states and the SEC primary yet still lose the nomination.
  20. #95
    Cruz is the quintessential darkhorse IMO. He has a very clear and reasonable path to victory. It largely just depends on if things that have decent probability of happening, happen. Basically his plan has always been to be "the outsider" and christian conservative candidate, which he has done extremely well. The problem is that even bigger outsiders in Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are getting that vote for now. Cruz thinks that their novelty will wear off then those votes will gravitate towards him. This could certainly happen, and given how powerful of a debater and communicator (and fundraiser) he is, he's got everything it would take to have a Reaganesque win. His problem is the establishment hates him, but the establishment may not get their pick this cycle.
  21. #96
    I like Cruz if for no other reason than his intellect impresses me greatly. Harvard Law debate semi-finalist indeed.
  22. #97
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    So much of elections are based on looks, that I'm surprised by alot of these picks wuf. Cruz and Walker are just plain too ugly/creepy looking to be president. Chrstie got no chance. Trump would be out too, but his face is an actual trademark.





    This post is only half a joke
  23. #98
    There may or may not be something to height. Which would favor Jeb.


    Lost it at Carson. Cruz and Walker great too.

  24. #99
    All I know is Stephen Harper and his hairspray helmet have no chance.
  25. #100
    I have decided that the most formidable GOP ticket would be Rubio/Fiorina. Policies don't win elections, presentation does. The media wouldn't admit it, but they decide elections because they mostly cover awkwardness or less-than-fully tact bites. These are the two most likely to not fumble when speaking and they have the optics. That said, I have no idea how well Carson would do. He could easily get 25% of the black vote and blow everybody out of the water, but maybe he's just way too non-traditional and maybe black voters are inelastic.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-25-2015 at 08:19 PM.
  26. #101
    OTOH I think Cruz is the one likely to make the least amount of strategic mistakes.
  27. #102
    Calling it now, President Carson sits the Oval in 2017.
  28. #103
    carson tied with hilldawg nationally. with not so great name recognition too. dude would fucking maul her.

    i get my jollies thinking the gop will put a black nominee. the left's collective head will explode when confronted by the idea that the right isn't the mountain of racism it's accused of being. i know you're not supposed to say these things, but that shit's stupid. ethnic perceptions are a big problem for the country, so if im put in a position where i think two candidates are somewhat equal, if one defies a destructive trope, im going for him.

    carson/fiorina 2016!
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    carson tied with hilldawg nationally. with not so great name recognition too. dude would fucking maul her.

    i get my jollies thinking the gop will put a black nominee. the left's collective head will explode when confronted by the idea that the right isn't the mountain of racism it's accused of being. i know you're not supposed to say these things, but that shit's stupid. ethnic perceptions are a big problem for the country, so if im put in a position where i think two candidates are somewhat equal, if one defies a destructive trope, im going for him.

    carson/fiorina 2016!
    The heads that will be exploding are certainly the people on the right with latent racist tendencies that they've never dealt with or owned up to. I mean, I agree with you, being a republican does not make you a racist, but a lot of republican positions are easily used to pursue racist agendas under a veil of legitimacy.

    Democratic strategist may shit their pants, but panic attacks among the electorate will be heavily skewed to the right.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    a lot of republican positions are easily used to pursue racist agendas under a veil of legitimacy.
    This is what I'm talking about. Just because a lot of people who are not Republicans think this is true doesn't make it true.

    The myth is so pervasive that it may take a black GOP nominee to start dismembering it. So yeah, where you think a significant chunk of Republicans will balk at the idea of a Carson nominee, I don't. Not only are the vast majority of conservatives not racist, but everybody is so fucking sick of being called racist at every turn that being black helps him.

    The amount of racism in the Democratic party is huge, but the only (only!) time anybody talks about racism is when a Republican does it. Nevermind so much of the overt racism in the Northeast and Midwest. Nevermind that Democrats push the racist policies and get the "racist outcomes". Nevermind that the places where blacks have it the worst have been ruled with nearly an iron fist by Democrats for nearly fifty years. But when the Republican party itself denounces the Confederate flag, a flag that is usually held up for reasons more complex than just racism, the Republicans are still the party of racists. The racism in the left is so ridiculous that its candidates get bullied by activists and have to apologize to them for suggesting that black lives aren't the only ones that matter.

    This bullshit will bite the Democrats in the ass big time. If Carson turns out to be a strong candidate, he will win the nomination then destroy the left's coalition, and he'll do so while getting every bit as much of the southern white vote as white men do. Nevermind that the south is by far the least segregated part of the country as is.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 09-03-2015 at 10:23 PM.
  31. #106
    Oh what irony in that Obama won the nomination because he's black. Without that, he doesn't sweep the black vote in the south, where the majorities in the Democratic primaries are black, and Hillary wins easily. Contrasted to if Carson won in a party with very few black caucus goers and primary voters. Iowa's as white as it gets, and he's whooping every white man not named Trump, while the details of the polls suggest that Carson is winning the caucus battle.

    This story is as it goes. The Democrats continually are the racist party and everybody turns a blind eye. I had to examine the data my own damn self to even figure out that Obama really did win the primaries because of the race vote. The social justice media wouldn't touch that story with a ten foot pole. That would defy its need for a victim from a group whose optics are of weak status. This has always been its engine.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 09-04-2015 at 12:17 AM.
  32. #107
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I had to examine the data my own damn self
    Where's this data?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Where's this data?
    Nothing spectacular, just demographics and vote distribution. It's piecemeal.

    Basically what happened is Obama was able to secure the entire South, where blacks make up close to half of the Democratic primary, and where the rest of the votes are white. Texas and Florida are not traditional South in the amount of Hispanics and that Florida is sorta Neo New Jersey. They both went to Hillary, as she always played well in both demographics. Obama secured about 80% of the black vote, which was unprecedented. Because of this, Obama crushed her in places she would have otherwise been strong, like Maryland and Virginia.

    Today, the media tacitly acknowledges that the story would have been different if Obama hadn't gotten such high support among black voters. They like saying how Sanders can't beat Hillary because he doesn't have the black support Obama did. So even if he wins all the primaries not heavy in black voters that Obama did, he won't be able to get anywhere close in the South.
  34. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is what I'm talking about. Just because a lot of people who are not Republicans think this is true doesn't make it true.

    The myth is so pervasive that it may take a black GOP nominee to start dismembering it. So yeah, where you think a significant chunk of Republicans will balk at the idea of a Carson nominee, I don't. Not only are the vast majority of conservatives not racist, but everybody is so fucking sick of being called racist at every turn that being black helps him.

    The amount of racism in the Democratic party is huge, but the only (only!) time anybody talks about racism is when a Republican does it. Nevermind so much of the overt racism in the Northeast and Midwest. Nevermind that Democrats push the racist policies and get the "racist outcomes". Nevermind that the places where blacks have it the worst have been ruled with nearly an iron fist by Democrats for nearly fifty years. But when the Republican party itself denounces the Confederate flag, a flag that is usually held up for reasons more complex than just racism, the Republicans are still the party of racists. The racism in the left is so ridiculous that its candidates get bullied by activists and have to apologize to them for suggesting that black lives aren't the only ones that matter.

    This bullshit will bite the Democrats in the ass big time. If Carson turns out to be a strong candidate, he will win the nomination then destroy the left's coalition, and he'll do so while getting every bit as much of the southern white vote as white men do. Nevermind that the south is by far the least segregated part of the country as is.
    You read my post with bias and decided that I said something I didn't.

    It's like you were trying to bait a liberal and had already typed a response.
  35. #110
    You said the right is more racist than the left, and I disagreed. I also said that my view that your view (a view held by most Democrats) is wrong is why the power of a Carson nomination would catch so much of the left by surprise.
  36. #111
    I never said there are more racists on the right. I could comment on that, but that's besides the point-- you know, since I never said as much.

    I'll say again: you read my post through the lens of your bias. Even after pointing this out, you couldn't reread it with out making assumptions about what I must have been thinking and what motivated my post.

    Why are you so eager to force everything into a my team vs your team dichotomy? Maybe past me is at fault more than anything *shrug*
  37. #112
    So when you said this, you were talking about something unrelated to everything we had said up to this point?

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Democratic strategist may shit their pants, but panic attacks among the electorate will be heavily skewed to the right.
    Don't accuse me of things. I read posts carefully and respond to them carefully. After being accused of bias, I was extra diligent to make sure that I had read your post carefully enough.
  38. #113
    You are not reading it carefully.

    You've inferred that I meant republicans are more racist than democrats and/or the republican party has at least a large minority if not a majority of racist members. While I can understand, especially due to your bias, why you would infer such things, neither is implied in my opinion regarding the electorate's potential reactions to a Carson nomination.

    Now since you don't seem to want to, or are incapable of dropping your bias-- I'll spell it out for you: We are discussing the Republican nomination, not the general election, and therefore I think it more likely that Democratic strategist/political nerds will freak out-- however, among everyday voters, for the most part, the sphincter-clenching-head-exploding reactions will be from republicans. A lot of democrats may be taken aback and have to rethink beliefs they've held, but you seem to have some strange desire for enjoying schadenfreude at the expense of anyone left leaning that your prediction here comes across as almost comically absurd.

    You know what's cool? We have data on democrats' reaction to a black man being not only nominated by one of the two parties, but elected in the general. There certainly is a historically present racist contingent of the democratic party, mainly in the North East and Midwest-- but what number of these people do you think still fly the democratic flag, post-Obama, and would have a vitriolic racist response to a republican nominee being black? It's simply far fetched.

    Also, I will accuse you of things. Next time I do, maybe you won't feel the need to respond with an unsaid, vague and empty threat, else I may accuse you of being childish.
    Last edited by boost; 09-06-2015 at 11:33 PM.
  39. #114
    I'll take your word that you didn't mean what I thought you did.

    There are two pieces of irony here: (1) you keep accusing me of bias yet my interpretation of what you said was in line with what we were both talking about. I see now that you changed gears while I thought you didn't. (2) You accused me of threatening you even though what I said is definitionally not a threat. Then you threaten me with an actual threat.
  40. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'll take your word that you didn't mean what I thought you did.

    There are two pieces of irony here: (1) you keep accusing me of bias yet my interpretation of what you said was in line with what we were both talking about. I see now that you changed gears while I thought you didn't. (2) You accused me of threatening you even though what I said is definitionally not a threat. Then you threaten me with an actual threat.
    How could I have changed gears? You started on the topic in #104 and my reply which lead to the misunderstanding is #105. What was it that we were talking about, and how was it that I was able to switch gears within the initial exchange?

    Commands, such as "Don't accuse me of things" are by nature implicit threats. You know, it's like, "Pay these taxes."
  41. #116
    I don't even know what you're saying you're actually saying. Both of your different statements suggest that you're saying that there is more racism on the right than the left.

    "Don't accuse me of things" is "don't accuse me of things". There is no threat there. You know what I'm going to do if you accuse me of things? Nothing different.
  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't even know what you're saying you're actually saying. Both of your different statements suggest that you're saying that there is more racism on the right than the left.

    "Don't accuse me of things" is "don't accuse me of things". There is no threat there. You know what I'm going to do if you accuse me of things? Nothing different.
    An empty threat is still a threat. But, I mean, whatever-- it's a silly thing to toss in there that can't serve but to heighten hostilities. Further, it's just, like, why-- why not accuse you of things?

    As for the racism on the right thing. I thought I was pretty clear. Whether there are more racists on the right or left doesn't matter. It's the republican nomination, and so the idea that the average lefty would have any sort of head-exploding level of reaction brought about by a prejudice against the nominee is absurd. This is my point. I'm not sure how you can infer "the republican party is more racist" from this point.

    As for whether I think there are more racists on the right-- yeah, if we had some way to actually count this and I had to hazard a guess, sure, why not. But I'm not going to argue the point, and I think it's telling that you seem adamant that the reverse is true. I know it feels nice to hold a contrarian view that you know is right-- inherently, on this one issue, you would be smarter than most everyone else... but unfortunately the desire for the feeling of intellectual superiority can convince us to accept contrarian views with insufficient evidence. Maybe that's not the case here, but "sometimes unions in the North East are racist and xenophobic" isn't exactly convincing.
  43. #118
    I don't think there is more racism on the left. Racism is pretty evenly dispersed among most walks of life. Many people think there is more racism on the right and that the left is particularly anti-racist. I think that's hogwash.

    Part of why I didn't find your statement clear is that I was referring to once the nomination happens. This puts it in general election territory. The head exploding that would come from the left would come by realizing that their standard narrative that the right is unabashedly racist needs reevaluation.

    I said to not accuse me of things for two reasons. (1) I don't like being accused of things. It does not make for constructive discourse. (2) Accusing somebody of things is a great way to construct your own biases. Now that you have explained what you meant, I don't think there is any way I would have interpreted what you said the way you interpreted it if I didn't have the bias that you claimed I did in the first place.
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I said to not accuse me of things for two reasons. (1) I don't like being accused of things. It does not make for constructive discourse. (2) Accusing somebody of things is a great way to construct your own biases.
    I still think this is silly. I accused you of either willfully misrepresenting my views or doing so unintentionally due to your bias. Maybe you didn't like the way I did it, and I'm all ears for criticisms on tone (I know this is a department I could stand to grow in), but suggesting accusations (as I feel the term has been broadly defined by you to include what I said) should be off the table completely is nonsensical.

    Now that you have explained what you meant, I don't think there is any way I would have interpreted what you said the way you interpreted it if I didn't have the bias that you claimed I did in the first place.
    I've reread this several times and I'm still lost.
  45. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't think there is more racism on the left. Racism is pretty evenly dispersed among most walks of life. Many people think there is more racism on the right and that the left is particularly anti-racist. I think that's hogwash.
    Yeah, I mean maybe the racism on the left tends to manifest itself in more veiled ways and the left's policies, irregardless of actuality, are ostensibly anti-racist, where as the rights at times appear to be the opposite.

    Part of why I didn't find your statement clear is that I was referring to once the nomination happens. This puts it in general election territory. The head exploding that would come from the left would come by realizing that their standard narrative that the right is unabashedly racist needs reevaluation.
    Yeah, I mean, maybe-- but I think it is far more likely that they just rationalize that the nomination was a desperate hail mary of a political maneuver.

    Also, I'd like to point out that the same way that Obama taking the Oval Office wasn't proof that racism in America is a thing of the past, a black nominee in the republican party doesn't prove that the party isn't "the mountain of racism it's accused of being."
  46. #121
    Saying "you're being biased and that's why you are wrong about this" is unproductive. It cuts off communication because it gives the accuser his own unshakable bias to maintain his position from. Of course I have some level of bias, as does everybody. I believed you were being biased yourself, but it hardly helps to wade into those weeds, and asking you to not accuse me of things was the best way I could find to put my point across without wading into those weeds.

    I've reread this several times and I'm still lost.
    I'm saying I wouldn't have seen what you saw even without the bias you say I had.

    Yeah, I mean maybe the racism on the left tends to manifest itself in more veiled ways and the left's policies, irregardless of actuality, are ostensibly anti-racist, where as the rights at times appear to be the opposite.
    This is where my schaudenfreud at the expense of the left, as you put it, comes from. In this country, you can be as racist against non-minorities as you want and you can be as condescending to minorities as you want, and you can do both with the racial moral high ground. The condescension aspect is similar to what we've discussed on this forum before with regards to feminism being anti-female. It treats women as if they're weak and in need of a savior. The left is the same with non-white races. It's one of the most racist things you can do outside of causing real direct damage to the life of somebody based on their race. The left swims in this bullshit. It's as if they think black people exist for the sole purpose of salving the white savior complex.

    Racism is a serious problem in this country and I think it goes incorrectly diagnosed. When members of the right say that welfare is hurting black people more than any other institution since slavery, I think they're right. And when members of the left say that black people need welfare because they're so oppressed and incapable of managing their own lives, they're being racists.
  47. #122
    I think you're very smart and a talented debater. Sometimes you come in guns blazing, shooting first before taking names (I do it too). My "don't accuse me of things" is in part a reaction to that.

    The dead horse has been officially quite bloodied.
  48. #123
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I feel like the racism coming from conservatives is more of the flavor of xenophobic "hate the other" type stuff. Most rural whites (who tend to vote conservative) interact with few if any black people in their day to day lives, but then spout off a bunch of racist shit when a black guy is on their TV screen. The same people tend to be totally cordial toward the few blacks that they know personally or professionally (he's one of the good ones, etc).

    On the other hand, the anti-black racism of the left can be much more subtle and dangerous. Urban whites (who tend to vote Democrat) often harbor prejudices, the key difference is that they actually are encountering numerous black people in their daily lives. They're also in much more of a position to make decisions that affect black people: more likely to employ them in the private sector, and more likely to be in political positions that affect them in the public sector. As wufwugy pointed out, most black people live in Democrat-run cities and states, and they're being shitted on as much as they ever were. Racism might be more common among the gops, but the less-prevalent racism of the left is potentially a much more potent social poison.

    This isn't even to mention the fact that the left's entire mission statement is to mete out social justice and establish protected classes through methods that are undeniably racist. I'm not even talking about reverse-racism against whites. It's deeply racist and patronizing against blacks to declare that they are victims who aren't capable achieving success. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's demoralizing and demotivating when society (or your mentors, family, etc.) has low expectations of you. It's a whole destructive feedback mechanism where the left campaigns for concessions for blacks (or women, or any other protected class), patronizing them, then they are ultimately worse off, and the winking racists are like "see, I was right all along" when blacks aren't succeeding at the level of other demographic groups. This is how racism is perpetuated on a large scale.
    Last edited by Renton; 09-08-2015 at 01:30 PM.
  49. #124
    Good post.

    Here's my n=1. I transferred to one of the whitest universities in the country. Not just white as in color, but white in its ethos. It's private, from traditions of Lutheranism, and close to all (but not all) of the students come from the mainstream suburban upper-middle class culture. Even the non-whites have integrated into this culture.

    I attended the opening ceremony, where the president gave a speech regarding the spirit of the institution. Without defining it this way, it was basically about the plight of the non-white. He discussed Blacklivesmatter, the highly publicized shootings, sex orientation and gender, microaggressions, etc, all within the context that the our mission is to understand and care and (implied) by doing so to help eradicate bigotry once and for all.

    So, here we have an institution with a history about as white in ethos as it gets, with virtually all members of the institution adhering to about as white of a culture you can get, and the most focal message is that people not like us need our help. It's the epitome of the white savior complex. It's kind of heart and intellectual of mind, but when you flip the rock you, you see the underbelly of superiority of one group and suppression of another. He even went so far as to give an anecdote about somebody he met who experienced too many microaggressions (on the order of people touching her hair too much or asking "where are you really from?") and was questioning whether or not she wanted to bring kids into this kind of world.

    That sounds absolutely silly right? Like no self-respecting person would make such a claim. But our society has gotten so out of hand that the type of claim he made would get mostly just nodding heads in any forum you can find. All the while, it's a great belittling of the "others". Black people must be so weak that a non-black person can't think that an afro is a unique type of hair without him feeling bad about himself. The white savior complex couples with the social order complex. Which is ironic in this context since the main thing that sets some of the black cultures apart is their rejection of the established social order. This complex is basically the same thing as SJW; it identifies a curving line then straightens it out. This flies in the face of what I believe many (honestly most) black people are taught by their families: to be proud of who they are and where they come from. This means that if they have an afro, it's not something to be ashamed of, and if some silly white people have never seen an afro before and express interest, it's not something to feel oppressed over.

    I gotta be honest, I don't think this social order bullshit has penetrated black communities that deeply. This is all white-land garbage where we have constructed caricatures of black people. I guess one way I would express this in action is by how many white people are deathly afraid of discussing race around black people, yet the amount of black people open to a frank discussion on the topic is quite large.
  50. #125
    I'm not sure how to articulate this well-- but I think what you're talking about are all symptoms of our society coming online, if you will. I guess I mean that both literally and figuratively in that the internet is the mechanism behind this cultural awakening. Overall and in the long term this sudden and rather jarring cultural shift will be a good thing, but right now, in the midst of it all, it seems like utter chaos. The reason I think things are different from previous cultural shifts is the speed at which ideas can be disseminated, discussed, critiqued and refined. Further there isn't a singular concise message conveniently packaged for our consumption. The old media was great at selectively informing, which made everything appear much more black and white, but now, with infinite sources of information, all the nuance is thrown at us. I would guess that this is the major source of the social growing pains that I feel like you're describing: people are still reacting as if they had the clear singular message, but the messages they're getting are fractured, nuanced, and not so easily actionable. For example, I think "microaggression" is describing a real thing which really does impact people's lives, and I think it's interesting to read about, but they also almost certainly aren't something that can be policed by social justice warriors.
  51. #126
    Carson beating Biden by 3 nationally while Bush and Trump lose by 8 and 10.

    Even though he's losing to Trump in Iowa by a few points, if the election was held today, Carson would still win Iowa. Lots of Trump supporters won't caucus and the heavy-caucus evangelicals usually coalesce around their favorite. Given that he's tied with the runner-up in New Hampshire, after a big win in Iowa and a week's focus on the state's town halls, Carson could easily win the state as well. Then we'll know who the next president's gonna be.
  52. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    For example, I think "microaggression" is describing a real thing which really does impact people's lives, and I think it's interesting to read about, but they also almost certainly aren't something that can be policed by social justice warriors.
    What are some examples?

    As an aside, I loathe the term microaggression. It's pretty ass-pulled and the examples I've seen don't seem to even technically be aggressive in nature.
  53. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What are some examples?

    As an aside, I loathe the term microaggression. It's pretty ass-pulled and the examples I've seen don't seem to even technically be aggressive in nature.

    I think the term, as I understand it, is pretty aptly named but possibly ill-applied. Each instance is inconsequential, but when added together the sum of all the microaggressions can have a real impact.

    I think the example you offered is a great one. At face value, from a third person view, a white person showing interest in a black person's hair is the same as anyone showing interest in another person's new pair of glasses. But for the black person, they are being bombarded with these inquiries or what may be meant honestly as compliments at a much higher rate and the subject is something inherent to them which identifies them as a stigmatized minority. It would be different if the minority was a visitor in a homogeneous society, but to be treated as a curiosity where you were born certainly has an impact on people. You've got an insider who throughout their entire life is in subtle ways treated as an outsider.

    Now, like I said in the previous post, I think it's an interesting subject, and I think it is worth understanding, but I don't think the energy needed to actively self police or to call people out is at all worth avoiding microaggressions. Simply understanding what they are and how they can effect people is probably enough for our culture to slowly shift away from them being a problem.

    As to why I think the phrase is aptly named but mostly misused, is that I think the view of the "victim" is the only one being considered, and this creates a victim mentality that is now on high alert to find instances where they are being victimized. In most cases, especially in the case of microaggressions expressed as inquiry, no harm is meant. Being guilty of microaggression does not make anyone a latent racist, it doesn't make them deserving of chastisement, it just makes them a person who is attempting to communicate with another human being while not parsing through every little thing they say to make sure it is up to the latest definition of PC. The problem with this phrase is that it is divisive, and it is so due to the fact that people have a very hard time assuming the perspective of the other. With a holistic vantage, it just looks like a quirk in society, and everyone involved is just a character in a David Simon script.
  54. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    As to why I think the phrase is aptly named but mostly misused...
    I can get behind your explanation here.

    That said, I worry that the assumption of victimhood runs deeper. By the logic people use for microaggressions, the way SE Asian natives treat white people is an accumulation of the greatest microaggressions there is. Yet there is only an assumption of that to be good, so no white people think of it as negative.

    Or let's say you're tall. I wouldn't be surprised if people over 6'5 receive more "microaggressions" than the average person of rare ethnicity (how tall are you, can you reach this, i bet you can dunk, does your head ever hit the top of a car, etc), yet it's just something they deal with like everybody has tiny things they deal with, and we move on.

    The concept of microaggressions to me looks quintessential condescension. "Oh that poor Asian fella isn't like us white folk. It doesn't bug us if you think stereotypes about us, but if you engage him in even the smallest of stereotypes, he needs us strong white folk to come in and set the perpetrators straight."

    I get that you're not disagreeing with this absurdity I'm pointing out. I just have a hard time seeing how microaggression is a useful, non-condescending, concept in any iteration. I come from a culture (most of white America does) where when somebody says something unique of you (regardless of veracity) that isn't a blatant insult, you say "you're goddamn right". I wonder if this isn't because white culture is the most suppressed of them all (fuckin Victorians, yo), and we delight at the idea of standing out and being recognized. White bitches love them some beauty pageants. Black bitches roll their eyes at that shit because they don't need the outside validation.
  55. #130
  56. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    6
    Location
    florida
    All i can say is go trump, atleast the man wont lie to people, from what i know of him.
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I can get behind your explanation here.

    That said, I worry that the assumption of victimhood runs deeper. By the logic people use for microaggressions, the way SE Asian natives treat white people is an accumulation of the greatest microaggressions there is. Yet there is only an assumption of that to be good, so no white people think of it as negative.

    Or let's say you're tall. I wouldn't be surprised if people over 6'5 receive more "microaggressions" than the average person of rare ethnicity (how tall are you, can you reach this, i bet you can dunk, does your head ever hit the top of a car, etc), yet it's just something they deal with like everybody has tiny things they deal with, and we move on.

    The concept of microaggressions to me looks quintessential condescension. "Oh that poor Asian fella isn't like us white folk. It doesn't bug us if you think stereotypes about us, but if you engage him in even the smallest of stereotypes, he needs us strong white folk to come in and set the perpetrators straight."

    I get that you're not disagreeing with this absurdity I'm pointing out. I just have a hard time seeing how microaggression is a useful, non-condescending, concept in any iteration. I come from a culture (most of white America does) where when somebody says something unique of you (regardless of veracity) that isn't a blatant insult, you say "you're goddamn right". I wonder if this isn't because white culture is the most suppressed of them all (fuckin Victorians, yo), and we delight at the idea of standing out and being recognized. White bitches love them some beauty pageants. Black bitches roll their eyes at that shit because they don't need the outside validation.
    1: This is certainly less true of people who live in S.E. Asia and don't plan to return to the west. Even those people have a home to return to in which they wouldn't have to deal with this.

    2: Being tall, when taken has a whole, is a positive attribute in our society. Being black is a negative. But even with that being said, I could understand how a very tall person could be sick of being asked if they can dunk, similar to understanding anyone being sick of being treated like an oddity, and so I would do what's reasonable to not participate in making them feel that way. While I understand
    the impulse, I certainly don't think telling someone to suck it up is the right way to respond.

    3: It's not that the majority can't help the minority, but there certainly is a problem with white saviors co-opting these sorts of things-- however, that doesn't make the issue any less real or relevant. It's the same as bigots tagging along on the right.

    4: I mean, you're essentially saying "I grew up in White America, and I don't get what people from outside my culture are so worked up about-- I would respond this way, and I'm not sure why they don't do the same." Well, they don't do the same, because they aren't from the same culture as you, and they process subjective experiences differently because of it.

    So you can understand that someone wants to stand out and be unique, but you can't understand that others don't want to constantly be reminded that no matter what they're an outsider?
  58. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    So you can understand that someone wants to stand out and be unique, but you can't understand that others don't want to constantly be reminded that no matter what they're an outsider?
    I'm not trying to say that. I think the cult of victimhood is a projection of the white savior onto others.

    I'm not sure how much of an outsider various people really are. I know the claim is that there are all sorts of outsiders that are victims of their outsiderness, but that more and more looks to me like the cult of victimhood. I really like the article I linked explaining how America was once a cult of honor, then moved to cult of dignity, and is now knee deep in the cult of victimhood.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 09-12-2015 at 11:18 PM.
  59. #134
    Again, the flaws of the white savior do not negate the issues they chose to focus on. Your insistence that any potential gripes minorities may have are born of the instigating of white saviors is suspiciously convenient to your world view.

    As for the article, I have to admit I skipped over it the first time you mentioned it. After reading it, I'm a bit perplexed. It essentially expounds my position on microaggressions in a more eloquent way. Maybe we're talking past each other-- it won't have been the first time.. but I feel like you've staked your claim in the "microaggressions aren't real, and people should be proud of being different, because white people would just shrug and say 'you're damned right!'" (the last part is added mostly for the laughs!) Yet the article is saying, like I am, that they are real, but policing them (especially as they are currently being policed by the SJWs) is an inane, unwinnable, and hopelessly tedious war which just leaves everyone worse off.
  60. #135
    theyre real in the most banal, technical sense. like the article points out, what we now call microaggression we once called tactlessness. what i think divides the two is the emphasis. the cult of microaggression seems to be about just declaring that distinctions are the problem.

    additionally, the word really rubs me the wrong way. it's a new word for a reason. it needs a mountain of bullshit to maintain its legitimacy. it's the same sort of ridiculousness as saying touching a girl's arm without her consent is rape. soon we're gonna have nanoaggressions, where if you look at somebody longer than they want you to, you're nanoaggressing against them.
  61. #136
    Haha..

    Like I said, I think since your turn to the darkside, we often talk past each other when we actually more of less agree save for minor details.

    I just think that there is more than nothing to microaggressions, and despite how annoying the phenomenon has been, I think there will be a lasting positive effect in that people will be less likely to be utterly tactless, but the shitstorm we're currently living in will have past and should someone microaggress people won't throw a fit anymore because throwing fits is a pretty lame thing for an adult to do.

    Now is the lasting positive effect worth all this nonsense? Meh, it doesn't really matter since we're already here.
  62. #137
    im triggered by all your boostsplaining.
  63. #138
    Battle of the Dark Horses 2016

    Trump vs Sanders

    How does it play out?
  64. #139
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Trump would landslide. America will not elect a self-described socialist in 2016.
  65. #140
    Sanders doesn't have ethnic minority appeal. Trump has *some*. It's a terrible situation for any Democrat to be in. Trump might lose the Hispanic and Asian vote more than Romney, but he would do better among blacks. He might do worse among white women, but would do a bit better among white men probably.
  66. #141
    Sanders would fail econ 101 and 102. Trump and Clinton could eek by with some cramming. But Sanders, he has such formidable ignorance that having to learn intro economics would put him into rebellious fits.
  67. #142
    Reading this article, came across a pretty great explanation for why Trump is popular.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ap_128089.html

    He’s a visceral response to a feminized culture. Talk to a selection of Trump admirers, and you’ll hear the same line over and over again: “He has balls.” (Or, as one of the less-blunt responders put it, “testicular fortitude.”) This is not a coincidence, nor a meaningless turn of phrase.

    Trump is, in a sense, walking testosterone. He does not care that your women’s studies class says gender is a social construct. He is fearless, and as such, he is the perfect foil for America’s growing victimhood obsession. Show Trump a trigger warning and he’ll give that trigger warning a painful wedgie.
  68. #143
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Watchin the debate,

    Trump is absolutely destroying these people. They all look like cowards next to him, getting walked all over.
  69. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sanders doesn't have ethnic minority appeal. Trump has *some*. It's a terrible situation for any Democrat to be in. Trump might lose the Hispanic and Asian vote more than Romney, but he would do better among blacks. He might do worse among white women, but would do a bit better among white men probably.

    What Dem vs Rep match-up would have you predicting a blue victory?
  70. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    What Dem vs Rep match-up would have you predicting a blue victory?
    Gilmore loses to the field. I could see Pataki and Graham not doing so hot. Huckabee and Santorum would surprise some, but maybe not be a favorite to win. The toughest contenders that I think would be a tossup are Christie vs Clinton. They both suck. There would be some weird side switching and staying home going on in that election. I have a hard time assessing how Trump or Paul would do against Biden or Clinton, but at worst they're 50%. Every other Republican I think is a sizable favorite against Clinton, who I think is probably a better candidate than Biden even though she's a shitty candidate. Maybe Biden would be better by now, but he's never instilled much fervor.
  71. #146
    got home in time to watch first half of debate but have to bed now.

    fiorina fucking kiiiiiiiiiiiiilling it.
  72. #147
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    We must been watching different debates. She was nervous, non committal, and her plan for Russia is to restart the cold war
  73. #148
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Like, is trump fit to be president.... "that's for the voters to decide"...wow. man up and answer the question. The only reason you arnt is because you don't want to take on trump...you're scared of him
  74. #149
    fiorina's performance will likely get her to at least third in the polls. i wouldnt be surprised to see a second or first showing. the iran comment was strong, response to trump about her face much stronger, and planned parenthood a bombshell

    on the substance of starting a new cold war with russia, that wouldn't happen and putin would run and hide if the US did what she suggests. for 60 years, the US has gradually increased its hegemonic powers, up to the point where russia was hardly even a threat anymore. it was only after the obama administration altered course from the 60 years previous of administrations that the previously well subdued adversaries have started looking like players again.
  75. #150
    i dont think the problem of the bush administration on foreign policy was philosophical, but incompetence. they had an agenda and wanted to push it through despite the facts, even though that agenda may have been "right". contrasted to the obama administration, i think it's incredibly competent. these guys are brilliant and fantastic at getting things done. but what they're bad at is having an agenda that's actually positive for the world and its people. obama's foreign policy disaster has nothing to do with competence, while bush's had everything to do with competence. reagan and h.w. bush were both very gop-agenda and very competent on foreign policy, and the results were fantastic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •