Election Day!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And that's why I ignore you. You have nothing valid to say.

Yeah, what am I talking about. Justice was served. The Youtube Perpgoat is locked away for at least a year.

Meanwhile

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/wo...t-us.html?_r=0

Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

All because Axelrod says keeping a light footprint (and hiding that Al Qaeda autonomy) in Libya is just good politics.

But what's really weird is how Al Qaeda in Libya wasn't really much of a terrorist problem before. What happened? Oh that's right, complete power vacuum because we started plinking Tinpot dictators with no plan for what comes after. Oh and with zero Congressional approval.

You guys keep not only matching Bush, but one-upping him. While applauding things you used to claim were criminal.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yeah, what am I talking about. Justice was served. The Youtube Perpgoat is locked away for at least a year.

Meanwhile

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/wo...t-us.html?_r=0



All because Axelrod says keeping a light footprint (and hiding that Al Qaeda autonomy) in Libya is just good politics.

But what's really weird is how Al Qaeda in Libya wasn't really much of a terrorist problem before. What happened? Oh that's right, complete power vacuum because we started plinking Tinpot dictators with no plan for what comes after. Oh and with zero Congressional approval.

You guys keep not only matching Bush, but one-upping him. While applauding things you used to claim were criminal.

Republican leadership on Libya: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

Republican leadership days later: WHY DID YOU DO THAT THING WE TOLD YOU TO DO?

Republican leadership now: WE CANNOT BELIEVE YOU DID THAT THING WE TOLD YOU TO DO AND NOW YOU'RE WORSE THAN BUSH!

Republicans: Morons.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

You're claiming that 93% of a populace voting along racial lines ISNT racism...

While I agree that there would be an uproar if 93% of whites voted for Romney, you really can't compare the situations like that. African Americans are a minority, there's a history there.

I look at it this way. African Americans voted for Obama more than against Romney. So to me that isn't as "racist" as voting against Obama just because of the color of his skin.

But again, I agree that the 93% is a bit disconcerting. But you and I have never had the "black experience". We've never been discriminated against because of the color of our skin. We've never been the only kid with dark skin in the classroom. We've never had negative assumptions made about us because of our skin color. Our parents never had "the talk" with us on this issue. We weren't raised in the black community, and we've never been part of it. Our president has always been a white guy. If the tables were turned I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that we might support "our guy". It's a pride thing. They were proud of being part of electing the first president of color in 2008, and now they're proud of defending his office against the rich white guy in 2012. Is this "racist"? Maybe. But again, they aren't voting against Romney because he's white. They're voting for Obama because he's black. And this is without considering that blacks generally vote Dem anyway, which greatly reduces the number of blacks for which race was a determining factor.

I also don't think the "he wouldn't have won if he was white" argument is correct. I think for every black person that voted for him because he's black there's at least one white person who voted against him for the same reason. And I think that's a rather common sensical assumption. There are roughly 4 times more white voters than black voters. So it only takes 25% of white voters factoring in race to match the black vote.

This is a difficult, sensitive topic. And I understand where you're coming from and why that 93% is a bit jarring at first glance. But I have a hard time with the "he only won because he's black" type of argument in a country where a whole region overwhelmingly voted for Romney/against Obama, and in a country where African Americans are a minority with a "colorful" history. It's not a utopian situation. But I don't think it really says anything nearly as bad as the 93% seems to suggest at first glance.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry this got so heated.

[baja]

Originally Posted by TonyR

While I agree that there would be an uproar if 93% of whites voted for Romney, you really can't compare the situations like that. African Americans are a minority, there's a history there.

I look at it this way. African Americans voted for Obama more than against Romney. So to me that isn't as "racist" as voting against Obama just because of the color of his skin.

But again, I agree that the 93% is a bit disconcerting. But you and I have never had the "black experience". We've never been discriminated against because of the color of our skin. We've never been the only kid with dark skin in the classroom. We've never had negative assumptions made about us because of our skin color. Our parents never had "the talk" with us on this issue. We weren't raised in the black community, and we've never been part of it. Our president has always been a white guy. If the tables were turned I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that we might support "our guy". It's a pride thing. They were proud of being part of electing the first president of color in 2008, and now they're proud of defending his office against the rich white guy in 2012. Is this "racist"? Maybe. But again, they aren't voting against Romney because he's white. They're voting for Obama because he's black. And this is without considering that blacks generally vote Dem anyway, which greatly reduces the number of blacks for which race was a determining factor.

I also don't think the "he wouldn't have won if he was white" argument is correct. I think for every black person that voted for him because he's black there's at least one white person who voted against him for the same reason. And I think that's a rather common sensical assumption. There are roughly 4 times more white voters than black voters. So it only takes 25% of white voters factoring in race to match the black vote.

This is a difficult, sensitive topic. And I understand where you're coming from and why that 93% is a bit jarring at first glance. But I have a hard time with the "he only won because he's black" type of argument in a country where a whole region overwhelmingly voted for Romney/against Obama, and in a country where African Americans are a minority with a "colorful" history. It's not a utopian situation. But I don't think it really says anything nearly as bad as the 93% seems to suggest at first glance.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry this got so heated.

Wonder what those numbers would look like if the black guy has Romney's platform and a white guy was the left leaning guy?

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by TonyR

While I agree that there would be an uproar if 93% of whites voted for Romney, you really can't compare the situations like that. African Americans are a minority, there's a history there.

I look at it this way. African Americans voted for Obama more than against Romney. So to me that isn't as "racist" as voting against Obama just because of the color of his skin.

But again, I agree that the 93% is a bit disconcerting. But you and I have never had the "black experience". We've never been discriminated against because of the color of our skin. We've never been the only kid with dark skin in the classroom. We've never had negative assumptions made about us because of our skin color. Our parents never had "the talk" with us on this issue. We weren't raised in the black community, and we've never been part of it. Our president has always been a white guy. If the tables were turned I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that we might support "our guy". It's a pride thing. They were proud of being part of electing the first president of color in 2008, and now they're proud of defending his office against the rich white guy in 2012. Is this "racist"? Maybe. But again, they aren't voting against Romney because he's white. They're voting for Obama because he's black. And this is without considering that blacks generally vote Dem anyway, which greatly reduces the number of blacks for which race was a determining factor.

I also don't think the "he wouldn't have won if he was white" argument is correct. I think for every black person that voted for him because he's black there's at least one white person who voted against him for the same reason. And I think that's a rather common sensical assumption. There are roughly 4 times more white voters than black voters. So it only takes 25% of white voters factoring in race to match the black vote.

This is a difficult, sensitive topic. And I understand where you're coming from and why that 93% is a bit jarring at first glance. But I have a hard time with the "he only won because he's black" type of argument in a country where a whole region overwhelmingly voted for Romney/against Obama, and in a country where African Americans are a minority with a "colorful" history. It's not a utopian situation. But I don't think it really says anything nearly as bad as the 93% seems to suggest at first glance.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry this got so heated.

You might have a point if Obama hadn't received more white votes than Gore or Kerry (and that's running against G-effing-W). Alas, that is NOT the case. No matter what "studies" you cite that literally base a portion of their "research" on public school children, we have actually statistics showing this.

You keep on celebrating the reversal of generations of civil rights work, though!

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

You might have a point if Obama hadn't received more white votes than Gore or Kerry

More white votes because more voted? Or a higher percentage of the white vote?

Originally Posted by TheReverend

You keep on celebrating the reversal of generations of civil rights work, though!

I'm not "celebrating" any such thing. I'm glad the guy I thought was the better candidate won. I don't care about his skin color.

But I'd be curious to know how/why "generations of civil rights work" has been reversed? Because ~90+% of black people voted for a black guy, instead of the usual ~80+% voting Dem?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

Republican leadership on Libya: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

Republican leadership days later: WHY DID YOU DO THAT THING WE TOLD YOU TO DO?

Republican leadership now: WE CANNOT BELIEVE YOU DID THAT THING WE TOLD YOU TO DO AND NOW YOU'RE WORSE THAN BUSH!

Republicans: Morons.

Well you could get more specific. Support or opposition was never universal. But it's really just a deflection because it doesn't really matter.

Supporting or not supporting the action is different than simply ignoring the Constitutional issue of whether it is ever sanctioned by Congress. He likely would've gotten authorization. But he didn't ask. Not sure why. Guessing because he thought it was bad press.

But just in case you think it's just some big misunderstanding or difference of opinion, note that the man himself used to draw a hard line for others which suddenly became soft when applied to himself.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-flop-what-he/

So where does this leave us? In 2007, Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. Full Flop.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by TonyR

More white votes because more voted? Or a higher percentage of the white vote?

I'm not "celebrating" any such thing. I'm glad the guy I thought was the better candidate won. I don't care about his skin color.

But I'd be curious to know how/why "generations of civil rights work" has been reversed? Because ~90+% of black people voted for a black guy, instead of the usual ~80+% voting Dem?

Because an election was decided by image and not substance.

Regardless of who you champion and what you believe, America loses in that scenario EVERY time.

[Garcia Bronco]

Lol at all the emotional butt-hurt feelings. Losing is a part of partcipating. Everybody got their vote and the results are the results. No matter who won, we're on the long road to the bottom because of the outright mismanangement and poor decisons of the babyboomers. The public debt is the number one issue for me and it's not going to get addressed by either of these factions.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

Because an election was decided by image and not substance.

Regardless of who you champion and what you believe, America loses in that scenario EVERY time.

While I certainly wouldn't disagree with your second point, I don't agree with your first. What "substance" did Romney provide? He pretended to be right wing to win the party nomination (including the choice of a right wing running mate), and then he pretended to be moderate (including taking many of Obama's positions) to win the election. He presented an overall plan which was not much more than platitudes and an economic/tax plan that wouldn't hold up to even high level scrutiny. I'm not a blind Obama loyalist. I wish I had a better option. I didn't feel like I did.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by TonyR

While I certainly wouldn't disagree with your second point, I don't agree with your first. What "substance" did Romney provide? He pretended to be right wing to win the party nomination (including the choice of a right wing running mate), and then he pretended to be moderate (including taking to win the election. He presented an overall plan which was not much more than platitudes and an economic/tax plan that wouldn't hold up to even high level scrutiny. I'm not a blind Obama loyalist. I wish I had a better option. I didn't feel like I did.

I'm not claiming YOU didn't decide by substance. Many did. In fact, what would've amounted to nearly 3% of the popular vote.

I have no issues with Obama winning. It's the racial vehicle he won with that upsets me. We should be better than that.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

... so if we use that as a baseline, we can now quantify and conclude that roughly 20% of African Americans voted by race and the election was won by it.
...

Not really. In order to reach that conclusion, you'd have to assume that all the remaining issues in the platforms were exactly the same for Hispanics and African Americans - but they aren't.

We could quibble about that all day, but instead, I'll grant you your fundamental premise: that a huge percentage of blacks identified more with Obama than Romney (hardly a surprise) and that they turned out in greater numbers to support Obama than they would have turned out for some white democrat with either the same or even more liberal views -

So what?

Racial disparity is an issue in this country and has been since it was founded. After over 200 years of white domination, African-Americans are now supposed to set all that aside and become politically color-blind?

And this is in the same election cycle where they see an African-America candidate being falsely attacked for not being a Christian, or even an American? You think that doesn't reinforce their identification with a guy who is more likely to understand their viewpoints and the kind of ongoing prejudice they experience on a daily basis?

The fact is that a lot of people - maybe most voters - tend, when everything is said and done - to vote for the person they most trust to represent their interests. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. But that's politics. Always has been and always will be, and calling out blacks in this election (still a substantial minority of the electorate) sounds like nothing more than bitter grapes.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

93% worth?

Never mind you just PROVIDED evidence showing the same general economic class as Hispanics... so if we use that as a baseline, we can now quantify and conclude that roughly 20% of African Americans voted by race and the election was won by it.

I appreciate your efforts you to statistically prove my complaint, Old Dude, but we're all the losers here. This logic train leads to parties providing the best minority candidate instead of the best candidate for the job.

Yay, inequality.

Nice math. Big fan of Rasmussen are we?

Again, you're out of your element. Statistically speaking, you have no clue what you're talking about. There is literally no correlation between those numbers, and anyone who who has ever taken a freshman stats course in college will tell you the same.

[BowlenBall]

88% of Romney Voters Were White

Strange that we're calling black people racist, isn't it...?

(note to black OM members: I apologize for my peckerwood cracker OM brethren).

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Lol at all the emotional butt-hurt feelings. Losing is a part of partcipating. Everybody got their vote and the results are the results. No matter who won, we're on the long road to the bottom because of the outright mismanangement and poor decisons of the babyboomers. The public debt is the number one issue for me and it's not going to get addressed by either of these factions.

The baby boomers? What is it about the Right and their addiction to scapegoats?

Most of the legislation the Right is trying to attack and destroy was written before the baby boomers were born. Medicare and Medicaid was enacted before they were old enough to vote and the military industrial complex was also, already in operation.

I guess once the USSR fell, you could no longer blame everything on the commies, although that worked for a few decades. Then, you had the hippies, but they seem to have dissipated. Welfare queens wasn't a big enough demographic to blame everything on. Of course, there's that old standby, illegal immigrants.

Come to think of it, Obama clearly raked in the Latino vote. How many of those were illegal? Yeah! It's not those ****ing boomers (although we should shoot a bunch of them, just for yuks) it's those goddamn illegal aliens! They're destroying Amurca. There's a nigra in the White House!

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BowlenBall

88% of Romney Voters Were White

Strange that we're calling black people racist, isn't it...?

(note to black OM members: I apologize for my peckerwood cracker OM brethren).

Yep. From a statistical standpoint, if you can't plug in any other hypothetical factor and reach the same conclusion, then it's not math, it's speculation. If our president had a criminal record instead of being black, for example, you'd then be claiming that black people only voted for him because he's a criminal.

That also shows how blatantly racist it is to suggest that 20+% of the black population ONLY voted for him because of race.

[Rohirrim]

My guess is that the majority of black Republicans, say those who voted for Reagan for example, were fiscal conservatives who tended to be socially moderate, or liberal, on social policy, although as a group they tend to be Christian and pro-life. In other words, they are moderate Republicans. As we all know, moderates, and god forbid, liberal conservatives are no longer welcome in the GOP. For the GOP to now turn around and whine that the blacks are not voting for them is just irony of the highest order. You kicked them all out your party, dumb****s!

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

My guess is that the majority of black Republicans, say those who voted for Reagan for example, were fiscal conservatives who tended to be socially moderate, or liberal, on social policy, although as a group they tend to be Christian and pro-life. In other words, they are moderate Republicans. As we all know, moderates, and god forbid, liberal conservatives are no longer welcome in the GOP. For the GOP to now turn around and whine that the blacks are not voting for them is just irony of the highest order. You kicked them all out your party, dumb****s!

It's logical, and best of all, you admit it's a guess.

My advice to Rev would be to sit in on a high school math class, and with the money he saves from taking a college stats class, he can buy himself a clue, or some more of that stuff he's smoking.

Basically, he's saying this:

Given - Obama is black
1 - 20% more black people voted for Obama than traditionally vote Democrat
Therefore - 20% of black people voted for Obama only because he's black.

Look, I can do it too!

Given - There was a hurricane 4 days before the election
1 - 20% more black people voted for Obama than traditionally vote Democrat
Therefore - 20% of black people only voted for Obama because there was a hurricane 4 days before the election.

My guess what happened is this. We all know and have seen over the past two cycles that Obama has basically run the best ground game in presidential campaign history. He reached out to many voting blocs, including blacks, but also including young people, latinos and women, who traditionally have had lower participation for various reasons, one of them being that they didn't feel they were represented in government.

I don't know about you guys, but I know several people...several white people, in fact, who said the same...I've never voted before, but it seems to me like Obama has more of my interests in mind, not just more than the "other guy", but more than anyone else has ever had who's run for president.

To simply look at one stat, and come up with a silly conclusion like that, really makes one look stupid. And I mean stupid, not in the "you're a stupid-head" way, I mean in the "you literally lack intelligence" way.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by BowlenBall

88% of Romney Voters Were White

Strange that we're calling black people racist, isn't it...?

(note to black OM members: I apologize for my peckerwood cracker OM brethren).

But 88 percent of whites didn't vote for Romney. You're flipping this debate upside down.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

But 88 percent of whites didn't vote for Romney.

L0L @ you thinking you have some sort of point.

[razorwire77]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

My guess is that the majority of black Republicans, say those who voted for Reagan for example, were fiscal conservatives who tended to be socially moderate, or liberal, on social policy, although as a group they tend to be Christian and pro-life. In other words, they are moderate Republicans. As we all know, moderates, and god forbid, liberal conservatives are no longer welcome in the GOP. For the GOP to now turn around and whine that the blacks are not voting for them is just irony of the highest order. You kicked them all out your party, dumb****s!

My grandfather was an Eisenhower Republican, a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army and a Purple Heart recipient. He was a child of the depression, and believed that a strong central government combined with American exceptionalism was what defined us as a nation. He was also fiscally conservative and like Eisenhower was fearful of the military industrial complex, the expenses associated with nation building and the morality questions of unnecessary perpetual warfare. Defense should be for defense he used to say.

I'm sure he'd be considered a Marxist, Communist Socialist, "taker" by today's chickenhawk Republican power structure. The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. The Lee Atwater playbook is becoming less and less effective in national elections. Sure it will work to secure a state Senate seat in Mississippi, but in the grand scheme of things, who is really going to give a **** south of the Mason Dixon line? The party has been infiltrated with money from elites who want to set up a Corporate Oligarchy and from religious evangelical extremists who largely ignore Jesus's teachings when it's inconvenient.

The good news is I believe there are a large swath of Moderates and true fiscal conservatives that are growing tired of the nonsense. I think there are valid ideals where liberals and libertarians can find common ground. For example, the outrageously expensive and ineffective drug war spending; the outrageous costs associated with incarceration of non-violent offenders , Habeas Corpus questions, Patriot Act questions etc.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

And this is in the same election cycle where they see an African-America candidate being falsely attacked for not being a Christian, or even an American? You think that doesn't reinforce their identification with a guy who is more likely to understand their viewpoints and the kind of ongoing prejudice they experience on a daily basis?

^ Yup. This is huge. Great point.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

L0L @ you thinking you have some sort of point.

He also thinks we'd be better off with Tebow, so consider the source...

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BowlenBall

88% of Romney Voters Were White

Strange that we're calling black people racist, isn't it...?

(note to black OM members: I apologize for my peckerwood cracker OM brethren).

^ This is what got me so animated on this topic to begin with. White males in particular voted against Obama in droves and yet we're supposed to be mad at African Americans for supporting a black candidate?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by TonyR

^ This is what got me so animated on this topic to begin with. White males in particular voted against Obama in droves and yet we're supposed to be mad at African Americans for supporting a black candidate?

It's perpetuating the stupid notion that "reverse racism" is somehow as big or bigger a problem than "regular racism".