Juror#8

Lets discuss these “questions” that you’re referring to. Can you point them out? We can look at “questions” loosely, or you can just point to the squiggly curved line looking thing with the dot under it and we can align around what you’re talking about. I just see a handful of propositions that I asked if you felt were mostly true or mostly false. Not sure what’s “loaded” about that. Good post.

Thats fair enough and I agree largely with what you’re saying. I think that Trump foreclosed the black vote and rightly so. He would have never dislodged it from the democrats. Clinton’s message was all about “Trump is a boogeyman who will resurrect slave trade blocks on the courthouse steps and kick your neighbors out of the country.” That message didn’t galvanize young white and minority voters who Obama relied on because they can’t see past their twitter feed. They see everything in the context of normative online multiculturalism. What that boogeyman message did do was make her campaign seem like it was predicated on identity politics which pissed off middle America who wondered how anyone could predicate an entire campaign on what’s gonna happen to blackey or women if the other guy wins. Especially when the other guy was talking about localizing jobs and defending paychecks. What I still wonder is how the middle American voting block coalesces moving forward - around economic issues or as a rejection of the idea that minority issues is a political platform? Because if the latter does happen, what we will see in 15-20 years is even more racially aligned party allegiances. As a a black man who has voted Republican twice nationally (Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012), that’s tough to stomach.

I agree. Race is used as a divider. But if (and I agree with you here), common issues among the lower middle class and working poor are the same, why did 65% of white, non-college educated whites with non-salaried jobs choose Trump, and 80%+ of both black and Hispanic non-college educated voters working non-salaried jobs choose Clinton? https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/ If the issues were the same affecting both, and the parties could speak to the issues race-neutrally, wouldn’t there be more alignment there? It makes me wonder is there an intrinsic political racial division. I think that they should because their voice is as meaningful as any. I think the bigoted voters of all stripes were exposed during this cycle. The idea that there is a “black lives matter” to me is anathema to a civil and a color-blind society where one’s color doesn’t subject them to increased directional scrutiny. It should be “all lives matter” - and that would be a fair and coherent statement and a point that everyone could jump onto and get behind.

Do you think that there are no national political issues that advantage or disadvantage one racial group over (or under perhaps) another? Not a a trick question. I’m asking to know.

Do you think there are political questions that uniquely affect one race over another? And if so, does that make them fair game in national politics?

If there was an effort by a demographic to coalesce around a candidate, I’m not sure that that would be any worse an idea than it would if you changed your money manager based on the direction you’d like to take your portfolio if you feel that that person has your best financial interest in mind. I guess for that parallel to be exact, the question comes down to are there political issues that advantage people largely along racial lines? That’s an interesting question that I think can be argued either way. But if there are certain interests that are endemic to a certain demography, why wouldn’t I want that someone to represent me? So I guess there is a related question here and that is: “is identity politics a bad thing?” I think you summed it up nicely. I’m serious when I say that you should send this to a dem candidate with a note that says “here’s your platform; put a ground game around this and thank me later.” I’ve essentially been saying something similar for years. The dems have become an unabashedly coastal party. And that works when there are issues to galvanize behind or attractive enough candidates. I truly believe coastal penetration moves inward more than middle-American penetration extends outward. They never happen together. It’s one or the other. And the bell weather for which it will be is typically evident during the primary season.

The “let queers with dicks and mascara use the women bathrooom crowd”? Or the ‘black lives matter’ why-are-you-!@#$ers-interrupting-the Martin O Malley-rally-that-I’m-enjoying, social justice folks? Great great great grandson of a cotton picker who came here on a boat and hopefully was getting some ‘yessum boss lady’ roleplay kitty on the side (and as such I’m still waiting on my 40 acres and a mule and handouts from the guv’mint) ... yes. Hater of anyone, nah.

So do you feel that it was a turnout of the silent majority that basically saw this election as a choice between west/east coast liberalism and what? You mention rural conservatism but it’s hard for me to square that with Trump’s ethos. He strikes me as a lot of things but not “rural conservatism.” If you see that as the lines he was he was able to draw - coastal liberalism vs. rural conservatism, how did he fit himself into the latter? Or was the vote for Trump in essence simply a vote against Hillary Clinton?

Not sure it’s racist. What I’m interested in, though, is there a burgeoning type of identity politics and what impact could it have in 2020. The Dems have traditionally been the party of whistle blowing identity politics and leaning on traditional notions and affiliations between certain racial groups and their historical allegiances to the Democratic Party that it was interesting to hear someone say that there was an element of that from the other side in 2016. I attributed Trump’s win to socio-economic pragmatism and a distancing from run-of-the-mill political paradigms and not to anything from an identity politics standpoint. Just wanted to know if that was a miss on my part and if anyone sees an philosophical shift that Republicans can advantage from.

That was literally the conversation that I was having with a local politician and I thought it was interesting. It was also also the topic of an editorial published by in the Washington Times recently. Its worthy of discussion and very purposely mentioned as not a thesis. Some of the smarter political people I know post here and I’m interested in their thoughts. If you don’t like it or it intimidates you, so noted. Please move on.

Do you think that there is a demographic block of voting significance in this country that feels that there is has been cultural shift happening over the last twenty years away from a traditional demography to something that’s more sympathetic to a minority collective (blacks, women, Hispanic, gay, Asian, etc)?

No attribution necessary. This is simply asking a question. Stick to plagiarizing other people’s work product and stay out of threads that you’re ill-prepared to address and your small bus level of reading compression doesn’t allow you to approach with even a modicum of competence. You’re a dirty, moist vagina rag. !@#$ off. Thats better slave.

They’re not my ideas. I don’t necessarily even believe them. Its a question based on a Times article from last month. And it was interesting. So make this less about your efforts to demonize subject matter and discussion and focus on answering the question. Lemme guess, mainstream media again? !@#$ people, just have a !@#$ing discussion and cut the ****. It’s “yes” or “no.” It’s not an agenda piece. I’m asking a question. You responded. No attribution necessary faggot. Suck a dick and leave the ideas to the experts. Thanks. Moving on ...

Hmmm a lot of interesting things here. Thanks for your response. Some good points. And some boogeymanisms. A couple of factual errors/misleading items - 1. Hillary Clinton did “glad-hand” during this campaign. I shook her hand when she campaigned in Va. Actually, I’ve met her twice. Most recently it was the brief hand shake and smile. I also met her in 2000 and interviewed her for my school newspaper in Los Angeles during the Democratic National Convention (I went to the shadow convention that year too where Rage Against the Machine played and things became a little rowdy). Anyway, she was cool enough both times. I also went to a Trump rally (if you go back through old posts I created a thread asking if anyone local wanted to do a meet up at the rally in Hagerstown that would be cool - I would buy a beer afterwards - alas no takers). It was an interesting experience. I ended up not voting for either and writing in John Kasich. 2. Despite your commentary about other demographics who voted for Trump, the point still stands that his candidacy had a considerable amount of support from that single demographic vis a vis his competitor. And one can say white males guided his candidacy. Do you disagree with that? By the way, I haven’t seen you post here before. So from me to you, !@#$ you. Thats my dirty welcome mat.

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling. 2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. *This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record.

Positives hmmm ... 1. We may have just drafted the first half of our modern day Jp Losman to Lee Evans connection. 2. And its been been a while since we’ve seen 300 yard passers with 10 or less completions and 30 or more attempts. So if nothing else that should be a change. I hope Allen is a beast and proves a lot of people wrong.

Bill, I respect your fandom and your posts more than you know. I’ve been reading your thoughts for 8 years and they make this board a special place for us Bills fans. Along with Lori (where are you) and ten or so others, you’re one of the handful of ‘always valued posters’ in my book. Now that I’ve said all that, I think you may be trivializing some of the Josh Allen skepticism. I want the guy to be successful here. I was minimally critical of the pick (because I thought Rosen later would be better than Allen sooner while also conserving some draft capital) but I also said that I [obviously] hope [and think] Allen has the potential to have a fantastic career here. But his accuracy issues are unmistakable. His accuracy issues in a bad conference playing against subpar competition with receivers who didn’t drop a lot of balls (4.8% is what I read). That’s a lower percentage than Rosen, Jackson, and Rudolph. But they all had higher completion percentages. I read somewhere (and I think this is true), that evaluators overrate tall, strong arm, qbs and feel that they can fix any and everything else. Thats my concern. That he is Jamarcus Russell. Russell who had a similar skill set and similar completion accuracy issues (arguably a more questionable work ethic though). He has a big arm and I think that there is an enamorment there (rightfully so). But like some evaluator so eloquently said long ago, I don’t want to hope that Allen can complete enough 50 yard bombs so that I forget he misses 5 yard passes by 10 yards. Thats my concern in a nutshell. I hope that the scouting folks are right and my skepticism is misplaced.

Just should have stayed put or traded down to get Jackson or Rudolph. Can't even be excited about tomorrow's draft day with only two picks now. Hope he is more Matthew Stafford than Jake Locker but we will see.

Don't love this pick. Wanted Rosen even though he is a prick. Dude is hungry. I worry about Allen's accuracy. That's tough to fix. His receivers only dropped 4.8% of passes. He misses easy throws. I hope his issues are fixable.

Great pick. Happy.

Great job McBeane of not reading up. Poker hand. Sit still. Someone may fall. I agree that keeping those two first rounders is a priority because I think there is a chance Rosen or Allen is still there at 12. We got pros in the place. Stay put. Maybe trade up if Rosen is there at 9-10. Value proposition would be considerably in our favor then. Good job McBeane.

A few people (Mayock) saying that none of these qbs stand out as franchise worthy and not nearly as good a prospect as Wentz or Goff. Ugh. Almost think the best thing to do is sit and draft.

1. Jimmy McNulty 2. Fox Mulder/Dana Scully 3. Bunny Colvin

Is this from the original "Lost in Space"? If so, kudos my good man. A low key favorite of mine.

This is hilarious (and probably not unique to Alabama). You be the judge: https://247sports.com/college/usc/Board/29/Contents/Alabamas-Recruiting-Dominance-Continues-Wow-50860219