Why did the Democrats lose the election?

[iceaura]

del

 

[Russ_Watters]

Like I said, you appear to be naively relying on Party designation for your notion of "uniformity".

That doesn't work, because the Republicans have biased the measurement by overtly appealing to white racists and white racism against blacks in every election since 1968.

Gibberish. Again: are you not aware that blacks support Democratic Presidential candidates to the tune of 90% and have for upwards of 36 years? It is a simple yes or no question. Why act ignorant and crazy when you can just say yes to a simple fact?

'Facts are painful and scary!'
[/iceauraandjoe]

 

[iceaura]

Gibberish. Again: are you not aware that blacks support Democratic Presidential candidates to the tune of 90% and have for upwards of 36 years? It is a simple yes or no question. Why act ignorant and crazy when you can just say yes to a simple fact?

You are trying t0 argue political uniformity in the black electorate. It doesn't exist. Your criterion is stupid.

Voting against politicians who are going out of their way to threaten and attack you and your family and everyone of your race, does not make you politically "uniform" and allied with the other members of your race.

And we haven't even addressed the ugly motive here - the attempt to deflect the analysis of Trump's racism-based victory into some kind of "bothsides" tar pit, and pretend that means the racist white voters who just handed Trump the Presidency are just one side of a legitimate political debate

 

[Russ_Watters]

You are trying t0 argue political uniformity in the black electorate. It doesn't exist. Your criterion is stupid.

'Mommy, he won't give me back my toy!!' [/iceaura]
It's a simple fact, iceaura. I'm sorry it's so painful. (full disclosure: I'm not sorry)

Why are you trying to talk about black racism at all, in an analysis of an election won by a white racist appealing to white racism?

I guess bolding my theses doesn't help much, but what else can I do? I know: bold and caps -- then maybe you'll see it.... Hmm....This might just blow your mind:
THE IDEA THAT THIS ELECTION HINGED ON RACISTS CHANGING THEIR ALLEGIANCE OR TURNING-OUT IN GREATER NUMBERS BECOMES A LOT LESS PROFOUND IF IT IS MERELY THE THIRD ELECTION IN A ROW DECIDED THAT WAY.

Now prepare to have your mind blown even more: maybe Trump won this election because hundreds of thousands of racists stayed home?

 

[Tiassa]

'Mommy, he won't give me back my toy!!' [/iceaura]
It's a simple fact, iceaura. I'm sorry it's so painful. (full disclosure: I'm not sorry)

I guess bolding my theses doesn't help much, but what else can I do? I know: bold and caps -- then maybe you'll see it.... Hmm....This might just blow your mind:
THE IDEA THAT THIS ELECTION HINGED ON RACISTS CHANGING THEIR ALLEGIANCE OR TURNING-OUT IN GREATER NUMBERS BECOMES A LOT LESS PROFOUND IF IT IS MERELY THE THIRD ELECTION IN A ROW DECIDED THAT WAY.

No, no ... the problem is that you're wrong.

And, in truth, the first part of changing that, well, okay, after accepting that you're wrong, is that you should probably start making sense.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No, no ... the problem is that you're wrong.

Hmm...you make an interesting point; I look forward to reading your literature.
-Homer

And, in truth, the first part of changing that, well, okay, after accepting that you're wrong, is that you should probably start making sense.

My irony meter is broken off-scale.
-Frink

 

[iceaura]

THE IDEA THAT THIS ELECTION HINGED ON RACISTS CHANGING THEIR ALLEGIANCE OR TURNING-OUT IN GREATER NUMBERS BECOMES A LOT LESS PROFOUND IF IT IS MERELY THE THIRD ELECTION IN A ROW DECIDED THAT WAY.

So lucky for us it isn't.

It's the fifth Republican win in a row decided that way, though. Does that make it less profound, as well?

The Dems haven't won on the bigot vote since 1968. The black racist vote - the only one they would have had any chance at - isn't big enough.

 

[iceaura]

Now prepare to have your mind blown even more: maybe Trump won this election because hundreds of thousands of racists stayed home?

The white ones showed up in record numbers, tens of millions of them, and voted for Trump.

 

[billvon]

No. We're discussing the Presidential election here and I asked for studies/polls on black racism with regard to Presidential election voting patterns.

No, you didn't. Let's recap:
RW:"Based on your choice of source to respond to the question I asked, I'll take that as an acknowledgment that you understand that white racism is heavily studied, but black racism is largely ignored."
BVN:"Black racism is studied as well; if you'd like some links to articles I'd be happy to give you them."
RW:"Yes, please."

You then got three articles on black racism, which is what you asked for. So your attempt backfired, so now you are trying to say "I never asked for that." While you get points for trying, I would remind you that anyone here can read the thread and realize you are not being honest.

So again; we're agreed that black racism is substantially less studied than white racism!

Of course it is. It's less of a problem. Again, it's like trying to find articles on the problems billionaires have in trying to find low cost health insurance.

It's just that unlike you, I want to quantify the issue before claiming that it has no/insignificant impact. I also would like to examine it in terms of logic and consistency of attitude toward it . . .

. . . so you will ask for studies, then ignore them and claim you never asked for them? If that's "logic and consistency" you can have it.

I note that often when you start posting in political threads, you start out with fairly reasonable arguments. Then, as the argument develops, you get less and less rational; you start creating strawmen, denying what you said previously and trying to change the subject. Why not stick with the acumen you display when you start in such threads?

 

[Schmelzer]

I asked you a if Obama is a chicken, what does that make your beloved Mother Putina who fears both Clinton and Obama?

My beloved Mother is not named Putina, but Schmelzer, and does not fear nor Clinton nor Obama. If you want answers to your questions, ask them in a civilized way.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139 authorizes the use of force.

Quote, please, what you would interpret as such an authorization. The text of the resolution is here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2139(2014)

The funny thing is you have no problems with illegal Russian aggression. You have no problem with Russia's repeated illegal invasions, occupations, and annexations of the lands of its weaker neighbors, or Russian illegal violations of the airspace of other nations, and yet you are the first to cry about the possibility that other nations might take actions which are 100% legal.

For the simple reason that your claims have nothing to do with reality. What you name illegal is completely legal, and what you name legal is completely illegal, so why should I care about such meaningless propaganda babble.

 

[origin]

For the simple reason that your claims have nothing to do with reality. What you name illegal is completely legal, and what you name legal is completely illegal, so why should I care about such meaningless propaganda babble.

The rest of the world seems to disagree with your assessment.

 

[Schmelzer]

The rest of the world seems to disagree with your assessment.

No. Maybe the rest of your world - which consists of believers of Western propaganda. The world is a little bit greater.

 

[joepistole]

My beloved Mother is not named Putina, but Schmelzer, and does not fear nor Clinton nor Obama. If you want answers to you questions, ask them in a civilized way.

You are obfuscating again comrade, and you are avoiding the question I posited to you. For the third time comrade, if Clinton and Obama are chickens as you has asserted, then why is Putina so afraid of them? Are you Comrade Putina? My question wasn't about your fears. It was about your assertion. So stop the obfuscation and answer the question.

Quote, please, what you would interpret as such an authorization. The text of the resolution is here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2139(2014)

For the simple reason that your claims have nothing to do with reality. What you name illegal is completely legal, and what you name legal is completely illegal, so why should I care about such meaningless propaganda babble.

Just because you don't like truth as demonstrated by your posts over a prolonged period, it doesn't change reality. It doesn't change fiction into truth. And that fact is the US and allied nations have done nothing illegal in Syria, and if they were to create a no fly zone, that too would not be illegal. And the fact is your beloved Mother Russia led by Mother Putina has repeatedly illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed the lands of neighboring states. That's why your beloved Mother Russia is under international sanctions. That's why your beloved Mother Russia has been sanctioned by nations around the globe for its repeated illegal invasions, occupations, and annexations of neighboring states.

This forum isn't in your beloved Mother Russia. I'm not in your beloved Mother Russia. The truth still matters here; evidence and reason still matter here. We aren't killed, or imprisoned, for speaking the truth here as would be the case in your beloved Mother Russia. Unfortunately for you and your beloved Putina, the truth still matters here comrade.

 

[joepistole]

No. Maybe the rest of your world - which consists of believers of Western propaganda. The world is a little bit greater.

I think you need to think about that a bit. You haven't been able to prove Western propaganda exists despite months if not years of trying. At first you called it NATO propaganda and now it's Western Propaganda because you couldn't prove your allegations.

You believe without question anything the Russian state tells you to believe and you deny anything and everything which conflicts with what the Russian state tells you by calling it first NATO propaganda and now Western Propaganda.

Unfortunately for you comrade, facts matter, the truth matters.

 

[Kittamaru]

Just to interject a bit of advice...

Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary)


Posting and moderation


When posting:

• Support your arguments with evidence

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Knowingly posting false or misleading information.
• Trolling.
• Propaganda, preaching, proselytising or evangelising.

Trolling

18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.


Trolls are damaging to online communities because they attempt to pass as legitimate participants in discussions while actually seeking to disrupt normal conversation and debate. If permitted to remain, trolls tend to reduce the level of trust among members in an online community. One consequence may be that truly naive posts are rejected by sensitised members as just more examples of trolling.


Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:

• Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
• Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
• Never attempting to justify their position.
• Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.
• Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
• Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.

Trolls are not tolerated on sciforums.

Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising

21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).


22. Propaganda wars are similar to flame wars, except in that they ostensibly involve argument about a topic. They are typically characterised by zealots on both sides of the argument who have no intention of listening to the opposing point of view, let alone possibly changing their minds. The result is invariably that members become frustrated and spin-off complaints to the moderators become rife.


23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, that demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument.


27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.


Repeat offenders

29. The moderator team have limited time and resources. We reserve the right to ban members who require continual policing by the moderators, those who contribute little useful content, and those who spend their time on the forum criticising it or its leadership. We similarly reserve the right to complain to a member’s ISP and/or to take legal action against a vexatious member.

If you are going to make ridiculous claims, at least attempt to back them with some semblance of fact...

 

[Schmelzer]

You are obfuscating again comrade, and you are avoiding the question I posited to you. For the third time comrade, if Clinton and Obama are chickens as you has asserted, then why is Putina so afraid of them? Are you Comrade Putina? My question wasn't about your fears. It was about your assertion. So stop the obfuscation and answer the question.

You obviously need some more education. So, again, I do not know any person named Putina, have never made any claimes about any person named Putina, and therefore unable to answer any questions related to such a person. So, your second question I have answered too. Try again, if you want to have an answer to a different question.

Just because you don't like truth as demonstrated by your posts over a prolonged period, it doesn't change reality. It doesn't change fiction into truth. And that fact is the US and allied nations have done nothing illegal in Syria, and if they were to create a no fly zone, that too would not be illegal.

First of all, I know that there are some arguments from international law that fighting terrorists on the territory of another state, once they have attacked the own state, and the government of the neighbour state is unable to fight these terrorists itself, is legal. This is not completely uncontroversial, but, whatever, fighting terrorists is at least morally justified.

But this is something completely different than making prescriptions to another state what the government is allowed to do on its territory. So, feel free to fight Daesh in regions where the Syrian troops are not present. But to forbid the government to do something on their own territory, namely to fly over parts of its territory, and to enforce this with force, is a clear case of aggression. If not explicitly sanctioned by UNSC for some reasons.

The usual meaningless fantasies disposed.

 

[Kittamaru]

You obviously need some more education. So, again, I do not know any person named Putina, have never made any claimes about any person named Putina, and therefore unable to answer any questions related to such a person. So, your second question I have answered too. Try again, if you want to have an answer to a different question.

You know exactly to whom joepistol is referring... it's Putin. As in the one who's values you appear to constantly extol. Now, if you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed, it reflects rather poorly on your claims...

 

[joepistole]

You obviously need some more education. So, again, I do not know any person named Putina, have never made any claimes about any person named Putina, and therefore unable to answer any questions related to such a person. So, your second question I have answered too. Try again, if you want to have an answer to a different question.

LOL...

And your obfuscation continues. You have been caught once again comrade.

First of all, I know that there are some arguments from international law that fighting terrorists on the territory of another state, once they have attacked the own state, and the government of the neighbour state is unable to fight these terrorists itself, is legal. This is not completely uncontroversial, but, whatever, fighting terrorists is at least morally justified.

But this is something completely different than making prescriptions to another state what the government is allowed to do on its territory. So, feel free to fight Daesh in regions where the Syrian troops are not present. But to forbid the government to do something on their own territory, namely to fly over parts of its territory, and to enforce this with force, is a clear case of aggression. If not explicitly sanctioned by UNSC for some reasons.

The usual meaningless fantasies disposed.

Translation: Contrary to your assertions the US and allied countries have the legal right to set up a no fly zone in Syria per the previously cited United Nations resolutions, from anyone including your beloved Mother Russia.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The term, not your bs. You had its origin wrong - which is not a surprise, because you got none of your familiarity with it from its original inventor.

The "regressive left" bs you relied on for your claims came from Fox, 4chan, Breitbart, talk radio, etc. None of the American "moderates and independents" you are talking about were frightened away from Clinton by the speeches and essays of a midlevel British politician, and that's not where you got your muddled notion of it from either.

I don't know about that, I been listening to Maajid for years he seems to use it in the same way.

Also I'm pretty sure Fox, 4chan and Breitbart more often just use the term "left" they don't care to separate the regressive left from the other left, it is all evil to them. Generally the term "regressive left" is used among liberals and moderate that agree with the left on many things, but don't want to be associated with regressive side.

 

[Schmelzer]

You know exactly to whom joepistol is referring... it's Putin. As in the one who's values you appear to constantly extol. Now, if you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed, it reflects rather poorly on your claims...

I'm unwilling to ignore in the future this intentional distortion of Putin's name. If he is interested in communicating with me, he has to follow elementary rules of polite behavior. Once the staff seems to ignore this, I have to enforce it myself.

Note also that you mingle a defense of Putin against primitive Western propaganda lies does not mean that I share or extol his values. I do not value big strong states at all, he values a big strong Russia. I share a common enemy with him, the unipolar, US-dominated world, and share his aim of a multipolar world with sovereign states, at least as much less evil than the unipolar world.

Translation: ....

Not translation, but wild fantasy.