Juror#8
-
Posts
1,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Juror#8
-
-
18 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
I think it's because the Democrats have a lock on the media. When the media's telling black people that Hillary stood for and with them when she CLEARLY didn't stand with or for anyone BESIDES HERSELF, you get results like what you see.
Trump had a message that hit poor white people hard, and it had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with how globalism destroyed manufacturing and by extension the stability of their lives and families. By extension, he linked mainstream republicans to that issue, as well as democrats. While I wasn't a fan of Trump, he was absolutely correct in his message. The mainstream politicians in DC sold all of us out with deals like NAFTA and allowing china access to the WTO.
In the meantime, the Democrats played ONE message to minority communities: "Donald trump is a racist."
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.
-
31 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
I see things in economic terms over racial terms.
Race is used as a divider, especially among the poor. Poor whites versus poor blacks versus poor hispanics. Quite frankly, the issues that affect poor whites are similar to poor blacks. Family disintegration, drugs, violence and most importantly globalization that benefits business owners over employees.
And yet you never hear about those common interests, only about "divisions." Why is that?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?
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.
10 minutes ago, m_w_hunter said:a lot of racists probably voted for trump. lots probably voted for killary. should their votes not count ?
I think that they should because their voice is as meaningful as any.
15 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:Yes but how significant I don't know. I think that illegal immigration has fueled some animosity toward hispanics and other ethnic/racial groups. Not because they are hispanic but because they are here illegally and drawing wages and benefits often and people rightfully don't like that. Politicians who are sympathtic and after votes (from those also sympathetic) pander and it's obvious and people don't like that either.
People also don't like false and exaggerated cries of racism and we've seen a lot of that in recent years and since Hillary and Dems fanned those flames, people don't like that either. That hurts the real cause of addressing racism (where it actually exists).
Trump made bigoted statements if you are viewing them through that lens.
And there are bigoted voters but we only complain about the white ones even though they exist in all shapes, sizes and colors.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
But the thing is, and I think its part of your basic question, is that there really were no "issues" that really helps any single racial group, though its being promoted that way. The stupid wall appeals to people along those lines but does nothing to really help. It's just Trump following his con-job salesmanship skills, just like in Trump University, to pull a fast one on the country. It's all just a con job. Ending Obamacare sure sounded to the right like they were sticking it to the black president, until many (or just enough) realized their local hospitals would be affected, too. And the repeal of it was only a way to cut taxes for the wealthy. Scam.
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.
-
1 hour ago, joesixpack said:
I see, well.
I think your question above with regard to trannies and BLM people holds SOME merit. Obama staked out some positions that were WELL outside the American cultural mainstream and Hillary's adherence to those positions hurt her in many precints.
That's a legitimate question to ask. But to base it on race? not so much.
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?
-
5 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:
Fear of social significance dwindling is not a new issue, for example White Irish immigrants were discriminated against as well as Italians, and even poles, they lived in their ghettos, and assimilated as time went on. The same thing will happen again, if anything the worry is those who won’t assimilate.
What is happening here is an idea old as time, is repackaged and sold to the gullible, to paint trump voters in a bad light. It doesn’t matter the demographic, people will still resist change at first, but eventually assimilation takes hold.
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?”
38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:In essence, a vote against Hillary. Trump has never been a conservative.
He did, however, market himself as a populist (and again, when has that ever been a conservative platform?) Right or wrong, that plays well against a perceived urban liberal elitism - perceived doubly as strongly when the Democratic party has gone out of its way to confirm its elitism by swinging its primaries against another populist using "superdelegates."
And the very term "silent majority" is illustrative of the problem: are they silent, or are they simply ignored, and not represented by any source considered national or nationally representative? This, of course, dovetails nicely into a discussion of "media bias," which is far less of the "great left-wing conspiracy" sort than it is the "national reporters need to get out of their northeast/west coast bubble and visit that mythical land of 'flyover country' they don't think really exists."
The "I'm right, and you're not entitled to an opinion because it hurts my feelings when you disagree with me, so I'm right" folks.
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.
-
3 hours ago, unbillievable said:
YOu forgot the #1 reason.
People everywhere hating SJW's. That includes other SJW's.
The Democrats really screwed themselves by getting on that train.
The “let queers with dicks and mascara use the women bathrooom crowd”? Or the ‘black lives matter’ why-are-you-!@#$ers-interrupting-the Martin O Malley-rally-that-I’m-enjoying, social justice folks?
25 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
Whatever you say, jew-hater.Great great great grandson of a cotton picker who came here on a boat and hopefully was getting some ‘yessum boss lady’ roleplay kitty on the side (and as such I’m still waiting on my 40 acres and a mule and handouts from the guv’mint) ... yes.
Hater of anyone, nah.
-
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:
Mostly false.
I think it was a matter of "identity politics," but too much focus is put on racial identity and not enough on socio-economic identity. Fundamentally, this wasn't "white male anger," but a conflict between metropolitan and rural, or northeast and west coast liberalism vs. rural conservatism (note the small "l" and "c".) I mean, you can't dismiss wide swathes of the country as "deplorables," pointedly ignore them while you campaign to your urban base, and expect them to believe you care at all about their interests.
To a large number of people, she was just "other people's candidate" that they were being told to choose. Trump, though an !@#$, was at least a choice.
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?
-
25 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
I'd get rowdy too, if I had to listen to that asshat Zack de la Rocha sing. His voice grates on my nerves, and manages ruin the awesomeness of Tom Morello playing his guitar.
As for your OP, it's mostly bullSchiff. If it makes the left feel better at night that Trump winning was some kind of racist/misogynistic message, great. That's not even close to the truth, though. Hillary represented the 'swamp'; the same 'swamp' that people were sick of. When 'Hope & Change' turned out to be 'more of the same', a lot of people took notice.
It was also notable that she was even more unlikable than Trump (which is saying a lot.) People had decades of watching her positions shifting with the wind, and she could not escape the elitist, disingenuous, corrupt image that she cultivated by her words and deeds. She does not come across as charming, like Bubba or Obama. It really didn't help that she personally insulted a large percentage of the population as well. Couple all this with the fact that she took several states for granted and ignored them, and you have a recipe for the 'most qualified candidate ever' getting her ass handed to her by a chia pet.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
" Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. "
This is attempting to have a reasonable discussion?
This is dreck. Like gatorman-level dreck unworthy of anything BUT mockery of the person who posted it.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:
Mostly false.
It was really easy to not like Hillary for President and Trump actually had policy positions on fiscal responsibility, national security, illegal immigration and the economy that were easy to support. I don't think people knew very well where Hillary stood on these things and the positions she did express were garbage. That and she was running as a continuation of Obama, not good.
A really polished Republican (any gender or race) that would have opposed Hillary and ran on similar to Trump policies only better articulated would have beat Hillary by an even wider margin.
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)?
-
21 minutes ago, B-Man said:
I stopped reading after the first falsehood.
Peddle your myths elsewhere.
I reluctantly voted for Trump, because Hillary Clinton would have ruined the country........THAT was the biggest reason, for ALL races, sexes and creeds.
.
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.
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:Edgy.
Mad?
Thats better slave.
-
1 hour ago, joesixpack said:
Frankly, I think your ideas are mostly bullshat.
But you knew that already.
1 hour ago, joesixpack said: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 ...
-
3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
Speaking as a non-male... bull ****.
1. I think people fail to realize how fed-up with "politics as usual" people are (male, female, black, white, pink, or green). DJT is definitely not politics as usual.
2. I also think people fail to recognize just how terrible a candidate Hillary Clinton was. She was never out glad-handing (clearly her health would not allow for it), she doesn't know how to connect with the "deplorables", and her er, integrity has been in question for 40+ years. She is the quintessential "politics as usual" politician.
3. The MSM and their biases helped contribute to the populist movement. Being told you are stupid, unsophisticated, and just plain wrong when we have this thing called the internet to refute and expand upon prejudiced reporting is also a contributing factor.
4. This theory completely disregards all the women (and non-white males) who voted for President Trump. Heck, even CNN reported more women voted for Trump than for Hillary Clinton.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.
-
3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:
I have been on this wonderful board for many, many years. Now, I am reading these posts that are absolutely hating the Allen pick and it is hard to understand why. Almost every season, I was on this board blasting yet another idiotic first round pick by the Bills. For instance: A #8 (in a stacked draft) on an undersized Donte Whitner? How about a 1st on a half dead Willis McGahee? In 2008 we had a very poor OL. It was awful. We drafted Leotis McKelvin, passing up both Ryan Clady and Branden Albert.
I could go on and on but my point is that fans were generally supportive of these clearly stupid picks. Now, we finally use resources on a big, strong quarterback and most people seem to hate the kid. Why? Because he said stupid things when he was a toddler? Because he went to a small school?
After what seemed like forever, we took a chance on solidifying the most important position on the field. We moved up to make sure we landed a qb with a cannon arm. What is SO freaking bad?
I for one am glad that we did something smart (for a change) in round 1, and welcome this young man to Buffalo.
GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
On April 19, 2018 at 2:10 PM, K-9 said:
Hop Sing
Howard Sprague
Dr. Smith
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:
Let’s get down to brass tacks ...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
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.