How to validate a stereotype, presented by Buzzfeed

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what I said "black Americans are more moderate when it comes to the political spectrum, specifically social issues."

Because... ding, ding, ding... they're more religious
Click to expand...
factually incorrect, but unimportant.

let's talk more about the duct tape anal rape creampies.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
factually incorrect, but unimportant.
Click to expand...
No that's actually correct. Black liberals are more religious than white liberals, religion tends to make people more moderate. Hillary Clinton was more moderate than Bernie Sanders as is evidenced by her political positions. So I'd say that's kind of important when asking why she lost..
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
you fucked up the quote while trying to get rid of the part about duct tape anal rape creampies.

Screenshot 2016-12-25 at 9.06.58 PM.png

black people and other POC make up the backbone of the democratic party. they vote overwhelmingly democratic. there is no party without them.

bernard doesn't give a shit, hence why he lost the backbone of the democratic party by about 80-20.

they didn't vote for hillary because she was more moderate, they voted for her because they are smart and know bernard didn;t have any chance to win.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
they didn't vote for hillary because she was more moderate
Click to expand...
Right, Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders!

Healthcare, education, trade, drugs, immigration, banking regulations, foreign policy, the environment... What stance does Clinton hold that's more progressive than Sanders?

Even Donald Trump was to the left of Hillary Clinton on key issues like trade
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Right, Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders!

Healthcare, education, trade, drugs, immigration, banking regulations, foreign policy, the environment... What stance does Clinton hold that's more progressive than Sanders?

Even Donald Trump was to the left of Hillary Clinton on key issues like trade
Click to expand...
i understand you don't want to talk about your proclivities towards rape, or sexual assault, or "duct tape anal rape creampie spreads", or the fact that black people and other POC who make up the backbone of the democratic party do not support sanders, but it needs to be talked about.

it wouldn't have mattered if hillary were more progressive than bernard, or less progressive. they voted for hillary because they knew she could win and a socialist old man jew had no chance. these people are not stupid, as evidenced by the fact that they vote 90% or more against trump or bush or romney or mccain or any other idiot the right nominates.

you are so fucking dumb that you would rather coronate new king trump rather than go for someone who does not meet your moronic purity standard. in fact, you didn;t even vote or volunteer, and here you are whining like a little bitch about the results of those who did vote.

i do not want rape-weirdos like you in our party. go vote for someone else. trump is your guy. he's against TPP just like you are.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"..just engage them on their ideas."

...on their ideas...

If you do that, it's drowned out by your unyielding personal attacks that don't address ideas. Oh look, midway through writing this post, a perfect example was posted;

Dude has no problem doxing people he disagrees with politically. In my opinion, that's pretty much the exact opposite way a person claiming to be liberal should react to being challenged or questioned about his beliefs. It honestly wouldn't ever cross my mind to go dig into someone's personal life online and post something I thought might be damaging to them, publicly. To me, that crosses a personal boundary because I'd like to think I actually have values.

Actual liberals value personal privacy, an end to government surveillance programs, abolition of the NSA, etc., yet Buck has no problem with exposing personal details of people he doesn't like. I think most people should rightly question the validity of his supposed progressive values. Same thing when he said he'd be happy people like @Flaming Pie lost their health insurance under Trump. That ain't progressive, man. You're playing pretend progressive while actually being an establishment democrat. A moderate, a "centrist", aka, republican light. That's why you support people like Hillary Clinton. Not because you believed she could get more done, because you've been shown how more Republicans in congress respect Sanders over Clinton, how Sanders resonates with working class voters more than Clinton and how he would have crushed Trump in the general had he been the Democratic candidate.

You don't have to address any of these facts, they're not for you. Lay down the gloves all you want, I would too if I were you
Click to expand...
So, a lot of what you say above makes sense. The bits about privacy, abolition of NSA, Sanders resonating with (white) working class voters (who aren't conservative). I added a some text to what you said in italics for the purposes of accuracy.

I don't see how those policy statement are antithetical to not gratuitously insulting people. You miss the point with PC culture. It's about avoiding gratuitously insulting people. It's not about safe spaces. Those are social experiments to try to improve college graduation rates. The following copied from The Economist as instructions to their writers says it well:

Avoid, if you can, giving gratuitous offence (see Euphemisms): you risk losing your readers, or at least their goodwill, and therefore your arguments. But pandering to every plea for politically correct terminology may make your prose unreadable, and therefore also unread.

So strike a balance. If you judge that a group wishes to be known by a particular term, that the term is widely understood and that using any other would seem odd, old-fashioned or offensive, then use it. Context may be important: Coloured is a common term in South Africa for people of mixed race; it is not considered derogatory. Elsewhere it may be. Remember that both times and terms change: expressions that were in common use a few decades ago are now odious. Nothing is to be gained by casually insulting your readers.
http://www.economist.com/style-guide/political-correctness

I don't see anything to object to in the above. Why is you in such a snit over this?

ps: Political correctness has nothing to do with Buck's statement to you. He's saying you are a weak fearful little gnome. He might be offending gnomes by saying so but he's being honest to you.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
9% of registered Democrats voted for Trump. If you took every single vote that went to Stein or Sanders and gave it to Clinton, she still would have lost

It ain't the Bernie babies fault


"According to the data, Donald Trump would have been soundly defeated by Bernie Sanders last night had the Vermont senator been the one to face him.

When examining the 13 states Hillary Clinton lost twice — the states Trump won side-by-side with the states Bernie Sanders won during the Democratic primary — the similarities are striking. The GOP nominee likely saw this, and tweeted in May that he was relieved to not have to face Sanders in the general election:


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

I would rather run against Crooked Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders and that will happen because the books are cooked against Bernie!

2:44 AM - 4 May 2016

In five states Sanders won where exit polling data is available — Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — the demographics that helped Trump hit 270 electoral college votes were also Sen. Sanders’ key demographics that helped him defeat the former Secretary of State in multiple primaries in different regions of the country.

The numbers suggest that there may have been enough Sanders votes in those pivotal states to have swung the election in Sanders’ favor if superdelegates and restrictive closed primaries weren’t part of the Democratic primary process. Popular blog All That Is Interesting created an electoral map assuming that Sanders won white, rural rust belt voters in the traditionally blue states that Hillary Clinton lost on Tuesday night in a hypothetical Trump/Sanders general election matchup, giving Sanders with a 303-235 advantage."



http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Avoid, if you can, giving gratuitous offence (see Euphemisms): you risk losing your readers, or at least their goodwill, and therefore your arguments. But pandering to every plea for politically correct terminology may make your prose unreadable, and therefore also unread.

So strike a balance. If you judge that a group wishes to be known by a particular term, that the term is widely understood and that using any other would seem odd, old-fashioned or offensive, then use it. Context may be important: Coloured is a common term in South Africa for people of mixed race; it is not considered derogatory. Elsewhere it may be. Remember that both times and terms change: expressions that were in common use a few decades ago are now odious. Nothing is to be gained by casually insulting your readers.
http://www.economist.com/style-guide/political-correctness

I don't see anything to object to in the above. Why is you in such a snit over this?
Click to expand...
Using this guide to political correctness, they would take the exact same issue I did with this horseshit produced by MTV, so why don't you?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Jill Stein received 1.06% of the vote, total

9% of Democrats voted for Trump

Why are you blaming 1% of Stein voters instead of the 9% of Democrats Hillary Clinton lost to Trump?

Because you're an establishment shill and having more anything other than a 2 party system is detrimental to the political establishment
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Jill Stein received 1.06% of the vote, total

9% of Democrats voted for Trump

Why are you blaming 1% of Stein voters instead of the 9% of Democrats Hillary Clinton lost to Trump?

Because you're an establishment shill and having more anything other than a 2 party system is detrimental to the political establishment
Click to expand...
why are you bashing the two party system when your hero bernard co-opted it so that he could get more than 2% of the vote?

LOL

duct tape anal creampie spread.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why are you bashing the two party system when your hero bernard co-opted it so that he could get more than 2% of the vote?

LOL

duct tape anal creampie spread.
Click to expand...
Deflect all you want, champ. Clinton lost 9% of Democrats, 1% of third party voters didn't lose her the election
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top