Discussion: Racism - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fox host on Trump ‘s---hole’ remark: This is how ‘the forgotten men and women’ talk



Now whose playing the race card??

The "forgotten people" are morons because if they feel black and brown immigrants are taking their jobs and space then how do they feel about european immigrants taking the same jobs and spaces? Chump didn't say he didn't want immigrants he said he didn't want black and brown immigrants..so the "forgotten people" can remain forgotten in favor of the REAL white people (and you don't get any whiter than norway)

Poor whites TODAY catch as much hell as poor minorities but have historically and consistently chosen their skin color over their class distinction. This is why white racist groups consist primarily of poor whites, its also why the easiest way to get poor whites to vote AGAINST their economic best interest is to say it helps minorities but especially blacks and you will see poor whites viscerally angry in opposition to whatever measure is proposed even tho it benefits them too. American history has show that poor whites inevitably and invariably WILL choose their skin color over their class distinction whenever rich whites like chump dangle that race politics carrot in their face.
 
Before Obama racism was kind of getting better, needed tons of improvement but it was headed in the right direction. But once he got elected, it seems like all the racism that was below the surface has started to bubble up and bubble up hard. It's ok for you to be in this country but not to run it. It's why Trump got elected and honestly, I think he will get re-elected as well. Sadly when the bubble does pop(and eventually it will), I don't think it's going to be pretty at all.
 
"It's ok for you to be in this country but not to run it."


Ridiculous to paint this as anywhere near a majority of the country or some epidemic problems. Racists have always been around. White people elected him though, he won their vote the same way he won the minority vote. Clearly, by-and-large, America as a whole wanted him running the country, by virtue of he got voted in to start running the ****ing country.
 
Aximili86 said:
"It's ok for you to be in this country but not to run it."


Ridiculous to paint this as anywhere near a majority of the country or some epidemic problems. Racists have always been around. White people elected him though, he won their vote the same way he won the minority vote. Clearly, by-and-large, America as a whole wanted him running the country, by virtue of he got voted in to start running the ****ing country.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. :up:
 
Aximili86 said:
"It's ok for you to be in this country but not to run it."


Ridiculous to paint this as anywhere near a majority of the country or some epidemic problems. Racists have always been around. White people elected him though, he won their vote the same way he won the minority vote. Clearly, by-and-large, America as a whole wanted him running the country, by virtue of he got voted in to start running the ****ing country.
Click to expand...
He won the white vote the same way he won the minority vote....care to give proof of this, as well as the comment....Clearly, by and large, America as a whole wanted him running the ****ing country...? and please don't insult me with...."he won".....I deal in statistics. Winning the Electoral College does not equal the majority of the country. The majority of voters voted for Hillary...so NO by and large America did not want him to run the country, and by large they are not happy with how he is running the country....his approval rating tells us this. I'm fine if you are happy with what he is doing g and how he is doing it..... that is your opinion, but please don't use sweeping generalisations to prove your opinion is right....
 
Last edited:
Okay, well, looking it up here Politico says he got 43% of whites in '08, 39% in '12. 4 points lower than Carter among whites, and about exactly equal to Bill Clinton. For comparison Hillary was 37% in '16. 35% white men went Obama, 31% went Hillary.

Going on that, there's no statistical fall downwards for Obama among whites, claiming it's a skin color thing is hysteria. Yeah, Republicans usually hold a higher pull of the white vote, but that goes when there are two white candidates going against each other too. There's no sudden drop in white people who voted yay for the black man, from them voting yay for the white man.

Also.

"Winning the Electoral College does not equal the majority of the country."


Sure it does. A majority in terms how how we decide elections, in the way it matters. That college map paints quite the picture, inconvenient is may be to the theres-no-mandate people.

The "more individual people voted Hillary" stuff is cute. If that was the way elections were done, awesome. It's not, so it's moot.
 
I think he knows exactly what she’s saying. The point he’s making, is that we don’t base our elections on a popular vote, so the point is moot. We base our elections on the Electoral College. It means nothing to try and make a point about Hilary getting a popular vote, as that’s not the system that’s in play, nor how the candidates campaigned. Who knows what the outcome would be, if the rules were different? We don’t know, so people need to stop acting like a popular vote means anything, when that’s not the system.

Take Baseball and The World Series, for example: the system is a best out of seven series. It doesn’t mean jack if your team had the most homeruns, but lost the series. The World Series isn’t about who had the most runs, it’s about winning a best out of seven, so complaining about who had the most homeruns during the series is a moot point. And just because your team had the most runs, doesn’t mean they’re the best or more powerful team, because that’s not the rules that both teams knew of going into the series. And even if The World Series was based on the most runs, doesn’t mean your team would’ve won, because maybe the other team would’ve adopted a different strategy based on runs, and not overall wins. Again, who knows? All that matters though, are the defined rules that both teams agree to going in. That’s it. Hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical. It means nothing.
 
Last edited:
Travesty said:
I think he knows exactly what she’s saying. The point he’s making, is that we don’t base our elections on a popular vote, so the point is moot. We base our elections on the Electoral College. To try and make a point about Hilary getting a popular vote means nothing, as that’s not the system that’s in play, nor how the candidates campaigned. Who knows if the outcome would be different, if the rules were different? We don’t know, so people need to stop acting like a popular vote means anything, when that’s not the system.

Take Baseball and The World Series, for example: the system is a best out of seven series. It doesn’t mean jack if your team had the most homeruns, but lost the series. The World Series isn’t about who had the most runs, it’s about winning a best out of seven, so complaining about who had the most homeruns during the series is a moot point. And just because your team had the most runs, doesn’t mean they’re the best or more powerful team, because that’s not the rules that both teams knew of going into the series. And even if The World Series was based on the most runs, doesn’t mean your team would’ve won, because maybe the other team would’ve adopted a different strategy based on runs, and not overall wins. Again, who knows? All that matters though, are the defined rules that both teams agree to going in. That’s it. Hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical. It means nothing with limited knowledge and variables.
Click to expand...

Why are we using the electoral college to determine anything?

Why should 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt outweigh 3 million votes across the nation?

And saying "that's the system we use so we can't question it" is a cop out.
 
Because it's a diverse country? Because San Francisco's different to Bum**** Texas? Because even among liberal cities there are different degrees of liberal, and among conservative cities different degrees of conservative?
 
Aximili86 said:
Because it's a diverse country? Because San Francisco's different to Bum**** Texas? Because even among liberal cities there are different degrees of liberal, and among conservative cities different degrees of conservative?
Click to expand...

Them being diverse in no way answers MD's question. Why should their votes count more?
 
They don't. Their areas/counties count the same.

Which is the, going-on-a-bold-kick-here, point. Representative democracy, people. The civilized world has done it this way for a couple centuries now.
 
Aximili86 said:
They don't. Their areas/counties count the same.

Which is the, going-on-a-bold-kick-here, point. Representative democracy, people. The civilized world has done it this way for a couple centuries now.
Click to expand...

No their areas don't count the same.

Denser populations are punished.

That's the only way 3 million votes get ignored and trashed.

The only way not to cheat anyone is one person, one vote. End of story.
 
Electoral college literraly puts more individual voting power in tiny states compared to bigger ones, and the gap has only gotten bigger as people leave in droves from those bum**** states and move to bigger ones with jobs.

And that not being translated to voting power is a democratic crisis. Crying that the country is "diverse" doesn't change the fact that the electoral college is awful and undemocratic.
 
I too think the Electoral College has outlived itself. It made sense so that the colonies could come to an agreement in order to form the country, but in today's culture and our accessibility to things, it no longer makes sense.

My only defense for it would be if it just take popular vote, then elections could be more easily hacked/rigged. Right now, such an undertaking would mean hacking multiple states in order to get the desired amount of electoral votes, where as popular vote would have no such issue. Outside of that potential problem, I favor popular vote in the future.

But, this is unlikely to change probably ever, so we're sort of stuck with it. We can all wish we had pocket aces, but sometimes you're dealt an off suited 2 and a 7.
 
We've had 58 presidential elections and the electoral vote has only differed from the popular vote 5 times, however it's happened twice in the past five elections? So I'm not fully set on things need to change as of yet. I think it'd need to happen again.
 
Erzengel said:
We've had 58 presidential elections and the electoral vote has only differed from the popular vote 5 times, however it's happened twice in the past five elections? So I'm not fully set on things need to change as of yet. I think it'd need to happen again.
Click to expand...

Realistically, I don't think both parties will ever agree to it. Which is why I don't get too bent out of shape about it. Sometimes you just gotta play the ball where it lies (even off Frankenstein's foot)
 
I'm also not convinced that the removal of the electoral college wouldn't just make candidates pander and campaign in California and New York only. Just removing California's votes, you would of had Trump win the popular vote by a million.
 
Maybe not just the states as awhole, but certainly all major cities would have greater pushes for turn out.
 
Erzengel said:
I'm also not convinced that the removal of the electoral college wouldn't just make candidates pander and campaign in California and New York only. Just removing California's votes, you would of had Trump win the popular vote by a million.
Click to expand...

When you need 60+ million votes to win it's foolish to only pander to 10-15% of the total amount of voters (around 140 million in total).

In other words if everyone in NY and Cali voted for you and they won't (at least 40% vote Republican), you'd still need 40 million votes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Discussion: Racism - Part 4
257 258 259
Replies
6K
Views
262K
squeekness
squeekness
T
  • Locked
Discussion: Racism - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
116K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Discussion: Racism - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
86K
Thread Manager
T
T
Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3
237 238 239
Replies
6K
Views
221K
blueharvest
blueharvest
T
The Clinton Thread II - Part 3
15 16 17
Replies
401
Views
50K
MagnarTheGreat
MagnarTheGreat

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,394 (members: 32, guests: 1,362)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,560
Messages
21,760,143
Members
45,597
Latest member
Netizen95

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"