Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

17 May 2016, 7:21 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Republicans will vote for black candidates when they share the same views, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with Herman Cain and Ben Carson who did tremendously well for guys who never held any elected office.


Again:
0 - number of votes for Herman Cain in 2012
9 - number of delegates for Ben Carson now.

If that's your idea of tremendously well it's no wonder you can't get African-Americans to vote for you.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

17 May 2016, 7:22 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
You know nothing about me, making you unqualified to judge my "trustworthiness". You merely don't like what I have to say, so apparently that alone makes me untrustworthy to you. News flash, not everyone's going to agree with you, doesn't make them bad faith actors.


I don't need to know you to point out your distortions and mischaracterizations; at no point have I claimed that disagreeing with me makes you untrustworthy, I've stuck to pointing out your departures from what I actually said and misuse of statistics. Apparently, you can't even argue for your honesty honestly, it's positively Clintonesque.

Aristophanes wrote:
There were no goalposts moved, you said quote:
Dox47 wrote:
On a side note, anyone else ever notice how black Republicans tend to do well with GOP voters, but inspire some of the most racist vitriol imaginable from progressives, yet somehow it's the Republicans who are racist (and the black ones are just confused and/or race traitors)? Kinda odd...

Again, for the upteenth million time: if the black Republicans do so well with GOP voters, how come those GOP voters don't actual show up and vote for them? No moving goalposts, just calling out your absurd statement.


Nothing absurd about it; I didn't say "the GOP goes out and finds black candidates and elects them", I said black candidates tend to do well, as the fact that Herman Cain and Ben Carson were at one point leading candidates for the GOP presidential attests to, in contrast to the progressive narrative that Republicans are racist. The fact that there are not very many black Republicans does not disprove the point, as I'd expect an expert in rhetoric to know.

You also didn't touch the abuse that out minority conservatives get from progressives of all colors, which undoubtedly contributes to their low numbers in the GOP.

Aristophanes wrote:
Please. I stated how politics actually works. It's a game of power, not of ideology, and the fact that you don't understand that explains a lot. Ideology is meaningless if there's no power to act on it-- that's just common sense.


Oh, so you're just playing politics? Again, have fun explaining to people how it's okay for you to bend the truth because it's "politics", see how well that goes over. I'm just a guy arguing on the internet, I'm not sure what you think you're doing.

Aristophanes wrote:
Who said anything about homogeneous? My point is African Americans don't trust Republicans. Republicans give lip service and only that. It doesn't matter if they believe in what you believe, if they can't trust you because your policies treat them like second class citizens they won't vote for you. Ideology is great and all, but that's not what people vote on, they vote on policy-- namely, will this policy benefit me? Obviously African Americans don't see any benefit in the Republican party policies.


Notice how you go back and forth; first it doesn't matter if the beliefs are similar if one party can't trust the other, but then you switch back to it being all about policy and nothing else, using accurate data (blacks do not vote Republican) to draw an inaccurate conclusions not supported by that data (because they don't like GOP policy), when there are alternative theories that make more sense (they don't like the GOP specifically). Obviously, you don't know how to interpret data, or don't care to do it correctly if you think it will advance your agenda, leading back to my original charge that you're not trustworthy, whether due to bias or incompetency.

Aristophanes wrote:
You defend the party line more than any Republican I've seen, and if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck-- it's a duck. Hiding behind "I'm not a Republican" is an easy out, if you're going to argue for their policies you can stand behind them when the war breaks out-- anything less is just cowardice, and I'd like to think you're not.


You must not know many Republicans.

Do I need to go through the list again? I'm a guy who wants to legalize all drugs, gut the military, gut our prison system, open the borders, build a robust social safety net, neuter the police across the board, doesn't care who uses what bathroom or who sleeps with whom or what, etc, and has been saying so loudly on this board for 8+ years, yet I'm the best example of a Republican you know? Incompetence or bias?

Aristophanes wrote:
As for brand loyalty, again, you're proving my point: if it's brand loyalty why is that?-- because the brand has proven successful for them, especially when compared to the only other brand. Sure, African-Americans have diverse beliefs (every group does), but the fact is there are only two brands available to choose from, and the only one that aligns up to their views enough to vote for is the Democratic one. Again, complaining about it won't change it, changing your policies and attitudes towards African Americans will.


You still don't get it; policies the GOP endorses are popular in the black community, the problem is the GOP label, not the policies. That simple piece of information should tell you that there is a part of the black community that is not best served by the Democratic party, but is voting for them anyway for reasons that do not involve policy preferences. The GOP could dedicate itself to black issues tomorrow, but it would still be the party that opposed civil rights decades ago, and still not get the votes, because policy is not the issue here.

That sets up an unfortunate feedback loop where the GOP has little incentive to go after black voters it has virtually no chance of winning, and thus further entrenching them with the Democrats, who have less incentive to fight for their votes when they essentially have them in the bag, thus continuing the cycle of disenfranchisement.

Aristophanes wrote:
You're right, the civil rights movement created an immense amount of loyalty. The Republicans had their chance to enact it in the late 50's and they balked. Five years later the Democrats DID enact it. When you give people representation and thus a voice, that loyalty lasts a long time.


Loyalty is great, blind loyalty is stupid. I'm loyal to Duracell batteries, for example, because they've always worked better for me, but if the quality were to drop and Energizer starting being the better product, I wouldn't keep using the Duracells just because they'd been good to me in the past. Democrats were right there with the tough on crime drug warriors enacting the carceral state that has done more to destroy the black community than anything else, crushing upward mobility with heavy handed regulations and crony capitalism, enabling the police to kill at will, and the black voters rewarded them by continuing to pull that 'D' lever, like a guy shoving sh***y batteries into his electronics cause they used to be good.

Aristophanes wrote:
To the Democrats' credit they haven't stopped fighting for civil rights, all the while the Republican side has continued to try and rollback those rights (voter suppression laws in red states, defending racial profiling, and I won't even mention things I've heard from Republicans about our current president because it probably violates this site's terms of service).


They talk a good game, but I bet they'd walk a better one if they thought those black votes might be in play.

Voter suppression is something both parties do, they just do it differently, since they need to "discourage" different demographics from voting; given your opinions on what is acceptable in politics, I'd have thought you'd be in favor.
Here's how the Democrats do it: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... -the-vote/

As to the "things you've heard", do I really need to dig up the magazine cover of Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey yet again to show that the GOP does not have a monopoly on racism? Hell, I can dig up liberals on this forum saying nasty things about black republicans all day long, it's not pretty.

Aristophanes wrote:
It's not "brand" loyalty, it's just loyalty-- Democrats fight for African-American issues, first and foremost trying to get African-Americans elected so they not only have a voice, but they have the power to decide for themselves. Either the Republican party doesn't care about getting African-Americans elected so they can govern themselves, or they are completely incompetent at it. Which is it?


The GOP isn't really into the whole affirmative action thing, and as we've established ad nauseam, there isn't a huge pool of black Republicans to elect in the first place, so the answer is obviously demographics, as you undoubtedly know but choose to ignore. Even Obama is against tokenism, as he's made laudably clear in recent months with his comments concerning his SCOTUS nominee, I'm not sure why you think the GOP should embrace it.

Aristophanes wrote:
Um, ok, we'll call it "branding" and not a "sales pitch"...as if there's a difference. :roll:


I'm not talking about branding either, I'm talking about the GOP being toxic as a brand to black voters, to the point where that trumps policy preferences. You'll notice that at no point have I suggested anything for the GOP to do to appeal to black voters, superficial or otherwise, as my opinion is that their name is so tarnished that their only resort is dissolution and reformation into a new party without the baggage. Basically, you've just wasted a lot of time beating a strawman to death.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

17 May 2016, 7:52 pm

@ Dox, I'm done. I've made my point clear and at this point your mischaracterizations are sinking to troll level, and I've learned not to feed trolls. But to restate the facts one last time:

0- votes for Herman Cain in '12
9- delegates for Ben Carson '16

In comparison
2,285½- delegates for Obama in '08 primaries alone.

White Democrats will vote for an African-American, white Republicans will not. If you want to look at your own side's problem with minorities that's as far as you need to look: if you can't support African-American candidates then African-American voters aren't going to support you.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 May 2016, 8:20 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Republicans will vote for black candidates when they share the same views, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with Herman Cain and Ben Carson who did tremendously well for guys who never held any elected office.


Again:
0 - number of votes for Herman Cain in 2012
9 - number of delegates for Ben Carson now.

If that's your idea of tremendously well it's no wonder you can't get African-Americans to vote for you.


Herman Cain and Ben Carson both led in polling at one time for president, did I forget to mention neither held any elected office before? Herman Cain dropped out of the race because of sex scandal and is now a popular syndicated radio host, Ben Carson might be Trump's VP or at the very least will serve in his administration. It's really besides the point as policy is how you reach minority voters, not just token candidates here and there which is why Donald Trump will win more of the black vote than any Republican in generations which isn't very hard considering where it is at. If Trump even wins 15% of the black vote, he'd probably win the election considering where it has been at the last couple elections. A more populist, less ideologically conservative GOP has a much broader appeal and I think will resonate with minority voters who are victimized by globalism more than anybody. Your votes argument really is nonsensical.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

17 May 2016, 10:49 pm

I'll catch you on the next debate Jacoby. :wink: This one's been pretty well discussed and to be frank I'm done with it because I have other interests on the site aside from this thread that I'd like to spend time on. (Politics is only a side interest for me here). It was a lively and edgy discussion, the type I enjoy-- thanks for participating and sparring with me, same with you Dox, there were some good zingers in this one. Also, let's face it, this got way off topic: we're talking African-American voting block in a thread titled "Will Trump Disclose his Taxes?" Lol, only in PPR. 'Till the next debate. :wink:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 May 2016, 1:23 am

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Herman Cain and Ben Carson both were at one point leading the polls in the primary, Michael Steele was a popular chairman of the RNC(not so much with the party insiders) for a few years not too long ago, Tim Scott was the African-American to serve in the US Senate from the south since the end of Reconstruction and there have only been 4 in between all together. I think if anything there are way way more Republicans who are more eager to vote for a minority(that shares their views of course) to show they're not racist than their are those who refuse. Lets not forget that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Hispanic too, the GOP field was much much more diverse than the Democratic field this go around.

Trump will win more the black vote than any Republican in decades, you can't lump Trump in with these loser Republicans because he isn't one and his policies will appeal to the poor and working class of all races. Trump will do much better with Hispanics than people expect. People think everyone votes for these social identity issues but this is about our pocketbooks and jobs.


Don't forget, Republicans during Reconstruction were the liberals, unlike republicans today. That, and while Rubio and Cruz are both Latinos, they're also Cubans, who by and large represent a conservative voting block, very different from most other Latino Americans.


And the liberals of yore were more like the libertarians of today whereas most self identified liberals now are more closer to some form of socialism or progressivism which are not liberal at all.

The point was to refute that the GOP electorate is so wantonly racist that they couldn't even bring themselves to vote for a minority that shares their views which I don't believe is the case and I think there is plenty evidence to suggest the opposite.


If liberals of old were closer to libertarians, why is it that they were behind government action against states rights, such as radical reconstruction, and even emancipation?
And while it's hardly true that every Republican is a racist, the fact remains, Nixon with his southern strategy, then later Reagan, were both able to capitalize on southern white racial resentment by making gains for the Republicans in Dixie. The fact that politics are so racially polarized in southern red states in itself shows how racism is a factor among the lily white Republicans.


Probably because the radical Republicans at the time were not liberal in any way, there is a lot more nuance to pre and post civil war politics than most people that haven't read or been taught about it extensively. You really can't put modern terms on stuff that happened a 150 years ago. The country was extremely fractured, radicals who championed and wanted the war were never the majority but the country was so fractured that they were able to wield significant influence. The radicals were often more times than not motivated by religious fervor in their anti-slavery views as John Brown was, I wouldn't call John Brown a liberal. Also lets not discount that there were also significant business interests at play as well with northern industrialists.

The demonization of southerners and Republicans doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm pure Yankee blood and in my experience the most racially tense places in this country are the big urban northern cities out out east. The city I was born in and the birthplace of progressivism is still one of the most segregated places in the country.

Regardless, Trump's message transcends racial lines even to legal Hispanics. There is nothing racist about his proposals, Trump is a metropolitan and I don't believe he's a racist or sexist or anything like that. The elites that all try to demonize Trump now all universally accepted him and his money until he started messing with their free lunch.


I'm not talking about John Brown, who was a well intentioned fanatic, but Lincoln, his cabinet, and congressional radicals like Thaddeus Stevens, who had enacted emancipation, and who had been behind the Freedman's Bureau during radical reconstruction.
And who said northern cities were paragons of racial progressivism? Racism exists everywhere, and with it anger. But that hardly dismisses the blatant racism in conservative states, whether those states had been under the control of old time southern Democrats, or the Republicans of today.
And yes, it's absolutely true the political parties of old can't be held to modern standards of conservatism or liberalism. That said, Lincoln could hardly fit in the Republican party of today, while Jefferson Davis hardly would fit in with modern day Democrats.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

22 Sep 2016, 12:37 am

Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,942
Location: over the rainbow

22 Sep 2016, 12:45 am

"Satirical and futuristic news"... hypocrisy, on the other hand, very real indeed.



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

17 Oct 2016, 5:04 pm

Given the statements Trump has made in the past, accusing others of not paying their fair share of tax, disclosing his returns now might expose him to being voted "tax hypocrite of the century". He evaded calls to release them (despite every other candidate having done so for decades) by trying to shift the blame for that omission on to his rival, ignoring his own double hypocrisy in doing that. (Trump is a loser of incriminating emails himself, he destroyed evidence long ago). The hypocritical email claim is always wheeled out to obscure Trump's non-disclosure issue. Time that this stopped and the returns were made fully available to scrutiny.

Things Trump has said about people who don't pay their share of taxes:
http://time.com/4516001/donald-trump-taxes-twitter/
https://thinkprogress.org/7-tweets-by-t ... .t1bdqh9sd



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

19 Oct 2016, 6:11 am

What assurances has Trump given but not delivered on? (Quite a few, see link). Promises, promises, promises..

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... t-released



Mootoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,942
Location: over the rainbow

19 Oct 2016, 2:55 pm

Funny how his cult thinks he's 'honest' and yet rated worst liar by Politifact in addition to being... the only presidential candidate ever to not release his taxes, I think... which would make him the least honest, presumably, unless honesty is redefined.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Oct 2016, 6:46 pm

Mootoo wrote:
Funny how his cult thinks he's 'honest' and yet rated worst liar by Politifact in addition to being... the only presidential candidate ever to not release his taxes, I think... which would make him the least honest, presumably, unless honesty is redefined.

You have to understand "the bubble". The vast majority of Gump's, oh sorry, I meant Trump's supporters get their news from one of Breitbart's news factories. I say factories, because there are over 1000 sites that are ran by Breitbart under different names and banners, but the stories all originate from one place with minor cosmetic changes to make the articles appear like they were written by different people. All affiliated sites are heavily cross-linked to each other (aside from Breitbart itself, so the main site looks unaffiliated and credible). So you read one story on an affiliated site that says "Hillary kills children", then you click to one of their affiliates that has an article with the exact same story, but minor alterations, perhaps now it's "Hillary maims children" and it appears now that there are 2 people that have the same "facts" that Hillary hurts children-- even though it's just the one central source. Now multiply that by literally 1000's.

Now, if you're a consumer of such "news"-- and trust me, that is a stretch, it's 95% crap you'd see in the "Opinions" sections of a legitimate newspaper-- but anyhow, if you're a reader and you've been sucked into the click ring to affiliated sites you get a completely altered reality of what's going on in the world, since every place you go there's a story about "Hillary killing children". So obviously if you hear someone from outside the bubble repeating actual news, you're going to go, but wait I heard the exact opposite multiple places-- and I'm well informed, I read a lot, so this person is obviously lying! It doesn't matter that what they've been reading is false, the fact that they've read a lot of it and not really checked it's credibility gives them the assumption they are telling the "truth". I mean, seriously, how could it be wrong-- I visited 200 websites and they all said the same thing. It's this "mass verification" that makes them so cocksure of their opinions. A misattributed quote to Joseph Goebbels is appropriate here: "You tell a big lie long enough and people will start to believe it."

So now, take Trump, with all his lies and distortions-- people in the bubble 1. don't get the story because Breitbart's machine doesn't publish it, or 2. they spin it as a lie by the liars in the mainstream media (you know the media not controlled by Breitbart). Then they hear this version literally 100's of times from the same source (masquerading as several sources). The internet has done some amazing things...this is not one of them.



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

19 Oct 2016, 6:51 pm

Today I looked at the "Flying Monkey Trump Supporters cartoon" and thought God Help America. I think only a tiny percentage of the devoted have any idea about how people with NPD manipulate supporters to fly off and do their bidding. Trump's encouragement to assassinate Clinton seemed to be an appeal to his Flying Monkeys, at least from my own perspective.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Oct 2016, 12:23 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Mootoo wrote:
Funny how his cult thinks he's 'honest' and yet rated worst liar by Politifact in addition to being... the only presidential candidate ever to not release his taxes, I think... which would make him the least honest, presumably, unless honesty is redefined.

You have to understand "the bubble". The vast majority of Gump's, oh sorry, I meant Trump's supporters get their news from one of Breitbart's news factories. I say factories, because there are over 1000 sites that are ran by Breitbart under different names and banners, but the stories all originate from one place with minor cosmetic changes to make the articles appear like they were written by different people. All affiliated sites are heavily cross-linked to each other (aside from Breitbart itself, so the main site looks unaffiliated and credible). So you read one story on an affiliated site that says "Hillary kills children", then you click to one of their affiliates that has an article with the exact same story, but minor alterations, perhaps now it's "Hillary maims children" and it appears now that there are 2 people that have the same "facts" that Hillary hurts children-- even though it's just the one central source. Now multiply that by literally 1000's.

Now, if you're a consumer of such "news"-- and trust me, that is a stretch, it's 95% crap you'd see in the "Opinions" sections of a legitimate newspaper-- but anyhow, if you're a reader and you've been sucked into the click ring to affiliated sites you get a completely altered reality of what's going on in the world, since every place you go there's a story about "Hillary killing children". So obviously if you hear someone from outside the bubble repeating actual news, you're going to go, but wait I heard the exact opposite multiple places-- and I'm well informed, I read a lot, so this person is obviously lying! It doesn't matter that what they've been reading is false, the fact that they've read a lot of it and not really checked it's credibility gives them the assumption they are telling the "truth". I mean, seriously, how could it be wrong-- I visited 200 websites and they all said the same thing. It's this "mass verification" that makes them so cocksure of their opinions. A misattributed quote to Joseph Goebbels is appropriate here: "You tell a big lie long enough and people will start to believe it."

So now, take Trump, with all his lies and distortions-- people in the bubble 1. don't get the story because Breitbart's machine doesn't publish it, or 2. they spin it as a lie by the liars in the mainstream media (you know the media not controlled by Breitbart). Then they hear this version literally 100's of times from the same source (masquerading as several sources). The internet has done some amazing things...this is not one of them.


I had no idea Breitbart's tentacles were so many, or had such reach. :pale:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

20 Oct 2016, 3:16 am

Nor did I. That explains a lot, thanks.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

20 Oct 2016, 8:24 am

Well if you're ever suspicous about the credibility of a website I recommend using www.whois.net-- just type in the domain or ip address and it'll tell you who the site is registered to.