2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
You shouldn't debate people who talk like this. You should shame them.

That's how children behave. It's intellectually inept.


Do not like. Bang with rock. Arrggg.


Also.. regardless of your opinion, that type of discourse is against the board rules. So do what you want, but don't cry about fairness when the mods ban your ass.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
See, that's where you and I part ways.

These things aren't 'opinions' that thinking people have. He said some very serious shit.

You can't have a debate with that anymore. At least you shouldn't.

"The wage gap myth. Anyone who has ever used the word "herstory." Anyone who has ever used the word "manspreading." Women who won't let you hold the door for them. Women who think every man is a rapist."

"balkanization"

"worship minority culture"

"whilst 'demonizing white culture"


You shouldn't debate people who talk like this. You should shame them.

Why? Simply because of a few words/phrases that they used?
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
That's how children behave. It's intellectually inept.


Do not like. Bang with rock. Arrggg.


Also.. regardless of your opinion, that type of discourse is against the board rules. So do what you want, but don't cry about fairness when the mods ban your ass.


See, we can debate this.

If someone says that I'm guilty of "demonizing white culture." Is it really incumbent upon me to have a serious debate with that person?

I don't think it is. I think It's my job to tell that person they're the horrible thing they are. I'm far too intelligent to waste my time 'proving' that racist bullshit is bad.

I'm not too smart to quit calling out dummies, though.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
That's not the issue, that's the answer. Healthy race relations are not fostered by balkanization, they're fostered by assimilation and integration. The progressive left wants everyone to worship "minority culture" and demonize "white culture," but that's completely the wrong approach. Progress is made in the areas where there's no such thing as "minority culture" or "white culture."

The same is true with modern-era radical feminism. "Pro-woman" policies are ignorant and counter-productive. Instead, we should focus on pro-everyone policies that just so happen to benefit women.

Your seem to be saying that racism, and perhaps homophobia and feminism as well, was dealt with in the 60's. If we just stay in the suburbs and don't have to see very many poverty stricken blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians we can imagine that everything is just fine today. If we don't compare the wages of females and males doing the same job, we can imagine that they are being paid equally for similar work. If we can just isolate the gay community, we won't have to feel uncomfortable in their presence.

Unfortunately, life outside the suburbs isn't as rosy as you would like to paint it. While some of these issues from the 60's have seen improvement, they are not solved. See what you want to see, but don't act like life in the suburbs is the norm for everyone. There are far too many heads buried in the sand.

You can't solve a problem until you admit there is one.
 
Last edited:

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
See, we can debate this.

If someone says that I'm guilty of "demonizing white culture." Is it really incumbent upon me to have a serious debate with that person?

I don't think it is. I think It's my job to tell that person they're the horrible thing they are. I'm far too intelligent to waste my time 'proving' that racist bullshit is bad.

I'm not too smart to quit calling out dummies, though.

I kind of agree that wizards's comments do not merit an intelligent response, which is why I have nothing to say about them, but to the extent that you do feel compelled to respond, I'll point out that Whiskey does an amazing job responding intelligently and maturely to ignorant comments by many posters all the time. I'd follow that example.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
If someone says that I'm guilty of "demonizing white culture." Is it really incumbent upon me to have a serious debate with that person?
Maybe you honest-to-goodness misunderstood what I said. I hesitate to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'll try.

I was not saying you were attacking "white culture," nor was I saying that "white culture" is a good thing. In fact, I pointed out that the entire notion of "white culture" is itself bullshit. "White culture" and "black culture" are concepts invented by progressives so that they can divide people along racial lines and then pander to constituency groups to get votes and power.
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
I kind of agree that wizards's comments do not merit an intelligent response, which is why I have nothing to say about them, but to the extent that you do feel compelled to respond, I'll point out that Whiskey does an amazing job responding intelligently and maturely to ignorant comments by many posters all the time. I'd follow that example.

You're right. I kind of straightened up when Whiskey came around.

I'll stop now, but I stand behind my words and my tone.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,071
In fact, I pointed out that the entire notion of "white culture" is itself bullshit. "White culture" and "black culture" are concepts invented by progressives so that they can divide people along racial lines and then pander to constituency groups to get votes and power.

Can you explain this further?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point based on the original context, but there absolutely DOES exist "black culture" and "white culture." Or perhaps you mean in it in a sense not truly beholden to the definition of "culture"?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Your seem to be saying that racism, and perhaps homophobia and feminism as well, was dealt with in the 60's. If we just stay in the suburbs and don't have to see very many poverty stricken blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians we can imagine that everything is just fine today. If we don't compare the wages of females and males doing the same job, we can imagine that they are being paid equally for similar work. If we can just isolate the gay community, we won't have to feel uncomfortable in their presence.

Unfortunately, life outside the suburbs isn't as rosy as you would like to paint it. While some of these issues from the 60's have seen improvement, they are not solved. See what you want to see, but don't act like life in the suburbs is the norm for everyone. There are far too many heads buried in the sand.

You can't solve a problem until you admit there is one.
I may have spoken too strongly if you inferred that I don't think that any of these problems exist. I recognize that they still do. My criticism of the way these problems are addressed has three main points.

First, I think they're overblown for political purposes. "Republicans are racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic" is an easy way to get minorities, females, and homosexuals out to vote against them.

Second, I think that most of these problems today are lingering effects of past injustices rather than ongoing systematic issues. For example, women and minorities may be underrepresented in executive ranks not because of problems today, but because folks of executive age were going to school and starting their careers in the 1960s and 1970s when women and minorities did have real unjust hurdles in the school and workplace. Thus, we can look at today's landscape and see the echoes (for lack of a better term) of a playing field that was not always level.

Third, I think the policies designed to help certain groups of people are actually detrimental to those groups. Targeted programs create a culture of dependence and carry the connotation that "you can't do it on your own, so we're here to help." I think that's toxic to any culture.
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
Can you explain this further?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point based on the original context, but there absolutely DOES exist "black culture" and "white culture." Or perhaps you mean in it in a sense not truly beholden to the definition of "culture"?

thank you.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,693
Reaction score
5,992
I may have spoken too strongly if you inferred that I don't think that any of these problems exist. I recognize that they still do. My criticism of the way these problems are addressed has three main points.

First, I think they're overblown for political purposes. "Republicans are racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic" is an easy way to get minorities, females, and homosexuals out to vote against them.

Second, I think that most of these problems today are lingering effects of past injustices rather than ongoing systematic issues. For example, women and minorities may be underrepresented in executive ranks not because of problems today, but because folks of executive age were going to school and starting their careers in the 1960s and 1970s when women and minorities did have real unjust hurdles in the school and workplace. Thus, we can look at today's landscape and see the echoes (for lack of a better term) of a playing field that was not always level.

Third, I think the policies designed to help certain groups of people are actually detrimental to those groups. Targeted programs create a culture of dependence and carry the connotation that "you can't do it on your own, so we're here to help." I think that's toxic to any culture.

Come check out the reservations here. It's absolutely fascinating to see what the dependence culture has done to them.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Can you explain this further?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point based on the original context, but there absolutely DOES exist "black culture" and "white culture." Or perhaps you mean in it in a sense not truly beholden to the definition of "culture"?
I'm saying "white culture" and "black culture" both do exist, and that's a bad thing. It creates artificial lines between groups that divide us.
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
I may have spoken too strongly if you inferred that I don't think that any of these problems exist. I recognize that they still do. My criticism of the way these problems are addressed has three main points.

First, I think they're overblown for political purposes. "Republicans are racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic" is an easy way to get minorities, females, and homosexuals out to vote against them.


<iframe width="550" height="350" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dN1IXDrXgV0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Your seem to be saying that racism, and perhaps homophobia and feminism as well, was dealt with in the 60's. If we just stay in the suburbs and don't have to see very many poverty stricken blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians we can imagine that everything is just fine today. If we don't compare the wages of females and males doing the same job, we can imagine that they are being paid equally for similar work. If we can just isolate the gay community, we won't have to feel uncomfortable in their presence.

Unfortunately, life outside the suburbs isn't as rosy as you would like to paint it. While some of these issues from the 60's have seen improvement, they are not solved. See what you want to see, but don't act like life in the suburbs is the norm for everyone. There are far too many heads buried in the sand.

You can't solve a problem until you admit there is one.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but my take on it is this:

- Bernie Sanders made a comment about white people not knowing what life in a ghetto is like.

- Someone pointed out that white people live in poverty, too. Perhaps not in the same proportion as black people, but in high enough numbers to make Sanders' statement sound a lot like pandering.

- Someone else bristled at the notion that white people might be in the same boat as minorities, and went on a diatribe about how there is a history of oppression of blacks in the US, using the policies of the early 20th Century to support their position.

- It was pointed out that those policies are not relevant today because we have (mostly) progressed beyond them.

- You came in and mischaracterized the above as someone insinuating that all of the prejudice was handled in previous decades. That was never the contention.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,071
I'm saying "white culture" and "black culture" both do exist, and that's a bad thing. It creates artificial lines between groups that divide us.

"White Culture" and "Black Culture" existing is NOT a bad thing.

The fact that their existence is used to divide us IS a bad thing. But to say that their existence is "bullshit" is... interesting? The very definition of culture means that different races have different "cultures." We shouldn't ask people to drop the parts of their culture unique to their race just because those things are used for less-than savory purposes by some (such as, like you referenced, dividing us as humans).
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Cruz has denounced that guy.

"White Culture" and "Black Culture" existing is NOT a bad thing.

The fact that their existence is used to divide us IS a bad thing. But to say that their existence is "bullshit" is... interesting? The very definition of culture means that different races have different "cultures." We shouldn't ask people to drop the parts of their culture unique to their race just because those things are used for less-than savory purposes by some (such as, like you referenced, dividing us as humans).
I think they're bad labeled as such. Things like Irish, Dominican, Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, and Haitian culture are all good because they add to our diversity of experience and are built on shared cultural heritage. They're not based on skin color. When you base it on skin color you end up with vile terms like "house n****r" and "race traitor." It's especially dangerous for young black men, who are told by their peers that they don't want to be like Ben Carson because that would be "acting white."

I very rarely agree with Barack Obama, he's addressed this himself.

Obama on 'Acting White' - WSJ

Sometimes African Americans, in communities where I've worked, there's been the notion of 'acting white'—which sometimes is overstated, but there's an element of truth to it, where, okay, if boys are reading too much, then, well, why are you doing that? Or why are you speaking so properly? And the notion that there's some authentic way of being black, that if you're going to be black you have to act a certain way and wear a certain kind of clothes, that has to go. Because there are a whole bunch of different ways for African American men to be authentic.
 

JughedJones

Banned
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
359
Cruz has denounced that guy.


I think they're bad labeled as such. Things like Irish, Dominican, Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, and Haitian culture are all good because they add to our diversity of experience and are built on shared cultural heritage. They're not based on skin color. When you base it on skin color you end up with vile terms like "house n****r" and "race traitor." It's especially dangerous for young black men, who are told by their peers that they don't want to be like Ben Carson because that would be "acting white."

I very rarely agree with Barack Obama, he's addressed this himself.

Obama on 'Acting White' - WSJ


Thank you for the whitesplanation.

Please tell us more about how black people feel.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
According to Ben Carson, Obama was raised white.

Well then Obama's quote IS whitesplanation then

Personally I could have sworn Obama was mixed race (black father/white mother), but then I thought Bill Clinton was white but was told he was the first black president.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Bloomberg Will NOT Run in 2016

Bloomberg Will NOT Run in 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-not-running-for-president.html

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALEXANDER BURNSMARCH 7, 2016

Michael R. Bloomberg, who for months quietly laid the groundwork to run for president as an independent, will not enter the 2016 campaign, he said Monday, citing his fear that a three-way race could lead to the election of a candidate who would imperil the security and stability of the United States: Donald J. Trump.

In a forceful condemnation of his fellow New Yorker, Mr. Bloomberg said Mr. Trump has run “the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears.” He said he was alarmed by Mr. Trump’s threats to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the country and to initiate trade wars against China and Japan, and he was disturbed by Mr. Trump’s “feigning ignorance of David Duke,” the white supremacist leader whose support Mr. Trump initially refused to disavow.

“These moves would divide us at home and compromise our moral leadership around the world,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a column published Monday afternoon on Bloomberg View, his opinion site. “The end result would be to embolden our enemies, threaten the security of our allies, and put our own men and women in uniform at greater risk.”

The decision by Mr. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who served three terms, ends months of intensive preparation for a candidacy. Convinced that a restive electorate was crying out for nonpartisan, technocratic government, he instructed his closest aides to set up the machinery for a long-shot billion-dollar campaign that would have subjected his image to a scorching political test.

They covertly assembled network of several dozen strategists and staff members, conducted polling in 22 states, drafted a website, produced television ads and set up campaign offices in two states — Texas and North Carolina — where the process of gathering petitions to put Mr. Bloomberg’s name on the ballot would have begun in days.

Mr. Bloomberg held extensive talks with Michael G. Mullen, the retired admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about forming an independent ticket. Lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg had completed the process of vetting Mr. Mullen, and all that remained was for Mr. Bloomberg to ask formally that Mr. Mullen serve as his running mate.

Plainly torn between his aspiration to serve as president and a mountain of data showing that the path for an independent campaign aimed at the political center was slim and narrowing, Mr. Bloomberg, 74, ultimately abandoned what would probably have been his last chance to run for the White House.

Had both Mr. Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont appeared headed toward victory in the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries, Mr. Bloomberg was determined to run, according to his advisers, several of whom insisted on anonymity to speak candidly about confidential discussions.

But Mr. Bloomberg balked at the prospect of a race against Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton, who has established a dominant lead over Mr. Sanders on the Democratic side. In his column, Mr. Bloomberg said he could not in good conscience enter a race that could lead to a deadlock in the Electoral College — and to the election of Mr. Trump, or perhaps Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Mr. Bloomberg’s decision brings a new measure of clarity to a presidential race that has come sharply into focus in recent weeks, and reflects both Mrs. Clinton’s tightening grip on the Democratic contest and the growing alarm among mainstream political and business leaders about Mr. Trump’s populist insurgency.

Mr. Trump is widely seen as a weak general election candidate, and surveys conducted for Mr. Bloomberg bolstered that perception. Mr. Bloomberg’s veteran pollster, Douglas E. Schoen, gauged his prospects in polls in February and March, testing Mr. Bloomberg as a candidate nationally and in 22 crucial states.

At the outset, about two-fifths of the country had no familiarity with Mr. Bloomberg, who may be best known nationally for his support of expanded gun control legislation. But Mr. Schoen’s February polling found that after voters heard mostly favorable descriptions of Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg collected 35 percent of the vote and a solid lead in the Electoral College.

In a race against Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, however, Mr. Bloomberg faced far tougher odds.

The most favorable result for Mr. Bloomberg would probably have been a stalemate in the Electoral College, with no candidate capable of taking the 270 votes required.

Under those conditions, the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a majority, would choose the president.

A second poll, taken by Mr. Schoen from Feb. 28 to March 1, found that Mr. Trump was bleeding support with general election voters after a flailing debate performance and a disastrous interview in which he failed to disavow Mr. Duke’s support.

Still, the poll found Mr. Bloomberg could overtake Mr. Trump and fall short of eclipsing Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Bloomberg acknowledged that cold math in his column. “I believe I could win a number of diverse states,” he wrote, “but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency.”

Mike Bloomberg was never going to run for president, like Romney, his popularity is too limited to win and he knows this.

By opting not to run, Mr. Bloomberg is deactivating a political apparatus far more extensive than the one he assembled the last time he seriously weighed a run for president, in 2008. In private conversations, Mr. Bloomberg appeared far more enthusiastic about running now, and he laid out his ambitions in conversations with leaders including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain.

Aides planned an elaborate messaging and branding campaign to introduce him to the electorate, and consulted with Milton Glaser, the architect of the “I Love New York” campaign, and the Swedish industrial designer Thomas Meyerhoffer to work on logos.

His messaging would have stressed Mr. Bloomberg’s identity as a self-made man and a problem solver not beholden to either party. A draft of his website carried the slogan, “All Work and No Party.” One logo, etched in purple, read simply: “Fix It.”

A rough cut of a presidential campaign ad described Mr. Bloomberg as the product of middle-class Medford, Mass., who built a multibillion-dollar enterprise from scratch. It cast Mr. Bloomberg as a philanthropist who had given generously to fight deadly diseases, and highlighted his experience managing New York’s security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“Finally, a new choice,” the commercial’s narrator says. “Independent Mike Bloomberg: President.”

Trevor Potter, the election lawyer who was counsel to John McCain’s 2008 campaign, was retained to assemble legal teams to handle local and state ballot-access issues, and address constitutional questions that could arise from an inconclusive result in the Electoral College.

A ballot-access consultant, Michael Arno, leased nearly a dozen offices in Texas and North Carolina to begin gathering signatures to place Mr. Bloomberg on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

For Mr. Bloomberg, who wrote in his autobiography that the presidency was one of the three jobs he most wanted, the decision drops the curtain on a long-held dream.

In announcing it, Mr. Bloomberg said he expected to serve in other ways. “For most Americans, citizenship requires little more than paying taxes,” he wrote. “But many have given their lives to defend our nation — and all of us have an obligation as voters to stand up on behalf of ideas and principles that, as Lincoln said, represent ‘the last best hope on Earth.’

“I hope and pray I’m doing that,” he wrote.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Super delegates are generally party faithful who owe their jobs/position to the establishment. That's no happenstance. They weren't at a Trump or Sanders rally.

agreed...the happenstance I mention is the fact that Trump will win because there were too many options for too long...in contrast with a bad candidate that was made a foregone conclusion.
 
Top