reddogblitz Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Would you prefer the actual results of every presidential election since 1964? No Democratic candidate has ever received less than 82% of the black vote since then. Which is the result of exit polls. We don't record each person's vote and race. At least not yet anyway.
row_33 Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, reddogblitz said: Which is the result of exit polls. We don't record each person's vote and race. At least not yet anyway. Doc gets married to any poll that matches his presuppositions What was the exit poll question of 2016.... shove a mic in a voters face and say “did you vote for Pig Nazi Trump???” With the whole conversation hooked up to 6 Marshall stacks?
keepthefaith Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Juror#8 said: I’ve always attributed Blacks’ traditionally democratic affiliation as a rejection of Goldwater who was one of the few mainstream national politicians opposed to the Civil Rights Act. He took a shitton of southern democrats along with him. Democrats who, through an electoral and philosophical shift, are now all Republicans. A lot of that shift and history accounts for the oft repeated, but patently untrue, notion that Republicans are racist. So over time things like Republicans not courting minority votes, and some of the **** Reagan did or didn’t do (opposition to Civil Rights and Voting Rights act and support of apartheid South Africa), and of course Hw and the Willie Horton infamy, and little **** like that, blacks have just grown incrementally and generationally distrustful of Republicans. It also helps that Jimmy Carter was considered a champion to black folks especially. And he was a political caretaker between Nixon, Ford, and then Reagan. I interviewed jc watt more than a decade ago for something I was writing for a program that I didn’t finish. He talked openly with me about how his party was way too exclusionary and that blacks had to somehow be able to fight through that political “cold shoulder” to somehow be able to see the natural policy alignment between conservativism and the black community. He said “we both know that ain’t happenin.” True story. Always liked JC Watts and wish he was more in the public eye these days. I think most Republican pols have not done a good job of marketing to the black community. With that I don't mean not offering as much taxpayer assistance as some of their competition but rather campaigning on the ground, getting to know people and sincerely listening. Edited August 10, 2018 by keepthefaith
Doc Brown Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, row_33 said: Doc gets married to any poll that matches his presuppositions I absolutely do. I think those exit polls are pretty accurate though given the urban/rural divide. You could also go to that NYT interactive map and look at the mostly black precincts to see the % of votes each candidate got. 36 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Always liked JC Watts and wish he was more in the public eye these days. I think most Republican pols have not done a good job of marketing to the black community. With that I don't mean not offering as much taxpayer assistance as some of their competition but rather campaigning on the ground, getting to know people and sincerely listening. That's one problem Republicans have as you'll here black people often say the problem is there isn't a viable alternative to the Democratic Party. Every election it's more about black turnout rather than what party they'll vote for. Another is Democrats believe in a large federal government which was vital in protecting blacks from hostile state and local governments during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement. Edited August 10, 2018 by Doc Brown
B-Man Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Via Daily Wire: On “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Thursday, entertainment mogul Kanye West described his decision to openly express his support for Donald Trump, which he said required him to have the confidence to stand up against massive backlash from liberals, media, and the hip-hop community, who tried to promote the idea that all African Americans must vote Democrat. “As a musician, African American, guy out in Hollywood, all these different things, everyone around me tried to pick my candidate for me,” West told Kimmel, when asked about his decision to support Trump. “And then told me every time I said I liked Trump that I couldn’t say it out loud or my career would be over, I’d get kicked out of the black community — because blacks, we’re supposed to have a monolithic thought…we can only be Democrats and all.” Keep reading… 1
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Via Daily Wire: On “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Thursday, entertainment mogul Kanye West described his decision to openly express his support for Donald Trump, which he said required him to have the confidence to stand up against massive backlash from liberals, media, and the hip-hop community, who tried to promote the idea that all African Americans must vote Democrat. “As a musician, African American, guy out in Hollywood, all these different things, everyone around me tried to pick my candidate for me,” West told Kimmel, when asked about his decision to support Trump. “And then told me every time I said I liked Trump that I couldn’t say it out loud or my career would be over, I’d get kicked out of the black community — because blacks, we’re supposed to have a monolithic thought…we can only be Democrats and all.” Keep reading… Too bad that ended his career right there. That poor, naive man. Doesn't he know that if he doesn't hate, the Nazis win? 1
TtownBillsFan Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 19 hours ago, Juror#8 said: I’ve always attributed Blacks’ traditionally democratic affiliation as a rejection of Goldwater who was one of the few mainstream national politicians opposed to the Civil Rights Act. He took a shitton of southern democrats along with him. Democrats who, through an electoral and philosophical shift, are now all Republicans. A lot of that shift and history accounts for the oft repeated, but patently untrue, notion that Republicans are racist. So over time things like Republicans not courting minority votes, and some of the **** Reagan did or didn’t do (opposition to Civil Rights and Voting Rights act and support of apartheid South Africa), and of course Hw and the Willie Horton infamy, and little **** like that, blacks have just grown incrementally and generationally distrustful of Republicans. It also helps that Jimmy Carter was considered a champion to black folks especially. And he was a political caretaker between Nixon, Ford, and then Reagan. I interviewed jc watt more than a decade ago for something I was writing for a program that I didn’t finish. He talked openly with me about how his party was way too exclusionary and that blacks had to somehow be able to fight through that political “cold shoulder” to somehow be able to see the natural policy alignment between conservativism and the black community. He said “we both know that ain’t happenin.” True story. I love me some JC. I'm from Tulsa, so we know him well here. I wished he'd get back into the political ring, at the federal level. He's a great guy!
LaDexter Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 22 hours ago, row_33 said: You weren't a traitor to your people by voting for the Republican Party, right????? It depends on why you voted for them. If you have been tuned out and clueless for the past 20 years, you might still believe that the GOP is still a fiscally conservative party patriotic to America. It hasn't been since 1998. If you voted GOP in 2000 because you knew the Mossad had 911 rigged and you wanted Traitor W in there to grease it.... yeah... that's treason. 15 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said: Hw and the Willie Horton infamy Never mind it was GORE who first used Willie Horton against Dukakis, truthfully and factually, and that the ad that had all the race baiters up in arms was not done by the HW campaign.... 16 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said: I wished he'd get back into the political ring, at the federal level. He's a great guy! And that's why he won't, because he knows good patriotic Americans get "backbenched" by Zionist Traitors on the Hill - have been since 1998.
Juror#8 Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, The_Dude said: We did lose Vietnam due to weapons shortages, though the early M16’s were infamous for failure — I myself enjoy the platform and have never had trouble with it. We lost Vietnam for getting sucked into a defensive war, and the NVA used a mixture of Fabian / guerrilla warfare. That and we had a lot of liberals and cowards, like Donald Trump, who didn’t want to pull their weight. The war could have ended with an invasion of the North. Or we could have used Eisenhower’s strategy of creating a nuclear dead zone to cut off the NVA. There were numerous options. The American fighting man did NOT lose that war. The American fighting man killed over a half million of ‘em to less than 60,000 US killed. The Romans lost more at Cannae in one afternoon and won the war it was in. They wanted it. They had the martial spirit. The American fighting man had the drive and the spirit to win ‘Nam. The nation however greatly failed the American fighting man. Much of this is not true. Well there are some waywardly true points that shouldn’t be combined together but you did anyway and it makes for a flawed thesis. Anyway, if you want to get into that, I’ll bite. Just let me know. As far as liberals and cowards, are you able to tell me which of the national politicians and which of the conservative policy hawks that thought engagement was a good idea in 1960 still thought the same thing in 1970? Have you listened to the Nixon-Kissinger tapes? I have. A lot of the conversations at least. Have you read McNamara’s report (Pentagon Papers)? I’ve read a couple hundred pages. Much of it is oppresively boring and statistically mind-numbing. But if you’ve read anything about McNamara, you’ll know why. Have you listened to any White House conversations between Eisenhower and Johnson with respect to the war, or maybe Johnson and Nixon? If not, you should. It’s intoxicating as a window into the minds of executives during one of the most singularly complex Sisyphian-level mountain climbing expeditions in our nation’s history. And listening to Nixon’s brilliance and cunning is beautiful. His mind was a work of art. He was a brilliant politician. Irredeemably corrupt. But brilliant just the same. Maybe you’ve done all the above. If so, I’d be interested to know ... What was “winning” Vietnam in your estimation? And if you’d listened to Johnson’s tapes mentioning invading North Vietnam, what are your thoughts on the concern that the nva would just hide in Cambodia and Laos where they were, for a time, receiving sanctuary and shelter and sympathy from anyway? Should we we just have just invaded there too following them around the jungles? And what of the legitimate concern that an invasion of the north, as opposed to simply trying to ensure and protect the idea of an automanous and self-sufficient Democratic south Vietnam, would invite retaliation from both China and Russia who were already supplying arms to the north. And what of the real problem in Vietnam which truly was rampant corruption and a lack of consistent leadership in saigon? And also the fact that any strategic plan that starts with finding the “cross over point” and ends with trying to take mountain top real estate in a triple canopy jungle along the Cambodian-Laotian border is about as pointless as breasts on a boar? What about the South Vietnamese countryside which the nva and the Vietcong were using as recruiting areas by stealthily sabotaging villages to turn the citizens against the Us. It sucks when you can’t identify your enemy. What about Britain and France bailing on us like bitches? What about the 15 million coup de etats in the south? What about the Buddhists being kept out of the government, and having no representation, and then setting themselves on fire followed by the young generation there protesting our soldiers and the constantly-changing government? What about the south Vietnamese political establishment being unwilling to listen to us about anything because they knew were were mired in Vietnam and were so afraid of the scourge of Communism, we wouldn’t bail irrespective of their obstinance ... even if it became a shitstorm? What about substance abuse amongst 30%-40% of our soldiers? How accurate do you think napalm is when dropped from 30,000 feet? Why were our soldiers using weapons with a high jam and failure rate and they were using battle tested Aks, supplied by the iron curtain, that never failed? Do you really know how !@#$ing bloody complex Vietnam was? I know a lot about that war academically and I can’t grasp it all. I know this, you can’t sum that **** up in a John Wayne cowboy quote like you endeavored to do. You said a lot of cool **** in your post that to most would sound convincing. Most of it is intellectually and factually compromised unfortunately. It wasnt liberals abd cowards who wanted out of Vietnam. It was conservatives and patriotic soldiers too. Lots of them. If you knew much about the taperstry which was the Vietnam War conundrum, you might well agree. Or maybe not. What the !@#$ do I know? I’m just a humble mother!@#$er with a big ass dick. Let me know if you want to chat. Edited August 10, 2018 by Juror#8 2
LaDexter Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 22 hours ago, The_Dude said: The nation however greatly failed the American fighting man. LBJ was on treasonous Zionist piece of ****, not the entire nation. 21 hours ago, The_Dude said: I’ve heard the Nam ones were awful. Correct. Israel got the good ones... for free.
Juror#8 Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, LaDexter said: LBJ was on treasonous Zionist piece of ****, not the entire nation. Correct. Israel got the good ones... for free. Read about how Nixon sabotaged one of the peace accords that could have brought Nam to an end in 68ish just so he could win political office. Brilliant man. An interesting political actor. Irredeemably corrupt like I said on page two in my rebuke of “The Dude’s” post. Not sure there’s ever been self-serving treachery like that, from a political actor, before or since. Edited August 10, 2018 by Juror#8
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 On 8/9/2018 at 4:26 PM, The_Dude said: Democrats make the effort that republicans dont and conservatives ought be ashamed of that. How, exactly? This should be interesting. 22 hours ago, reddogblitz said: I never had a problem with mine. It worked great at Camp Pendleton. Thanks for fighting in the wars guys. You have my utmost respect. I loved my M16. Did really well with it...for an artilleryman. My **** was always taken care of properly. 1
The_Dude Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Juror#8 said: Much of this is not true. Well there are some waywardly true points that shouldn’t be combined together but you did anyway and it makes for a flawed thesis. Anyway, if you want to get into that, I’ll bite. Just let me know. As far as liberals and cowards, are you able to tell me which of the national politicians and which of the conservative policy hawks that thought engagement was a good idea in 1960 still thought the same thing in 1970? Have you listened to the Nixon-Kissinger tapes? I have. A lot of the conversations at least. Have you read McNamara’s report (Pentagon Papers)? I’ve read a couple hundred pages. Much of it is oppresively boring and statistically mind-numbing. But if you’ve read anything about McNamara, you’ll know why. Have you listened to any White House conversations between Eisenhower and Nixon with respect to the war? If not, you should. It’s intoxicating as a window into the minds of an executive during one of the most singularly complex Sisyphus-level mountain climbing expeditions in our nation’s history. And listening to Nixon’s brilliance and cunning is beautiful. His mind was a work of art. He was a brilliant politician. Irredeemably corrupt. But brilliant just the same. Maybe you’ve done all the above. If so, I’d be interested to know ... What was “winning” Vietnam in your estimation? And if you’d listened to Johnson’s tapes mentioning invading North Vietnam, what are your thoughts on the concern that the nva would just hide in Cambodia and Laos where they were, for a time, receiving sanctuary and shelter and sympathy from anyway? Should we we just have just invaded there too following them around the jungles? And what of the legitimate concern that an invasion of the north, as opposed to simply trying to ensure and protect the idea of an automanous and self-sufficient Democratic south Vietnam, would invite retaliation from both China and Russia who were already supplying arms to the north. And what of the real problem in Vietnam which truly was rampant corruption and a lack of consistent leadership in saigon? And also the fact that any strategic plan that starts with finding the “cross over point” and ends with trying to take mountain top real estate in a triple canopy jungle along the Cambodian-Laotian border is about as pointless as breasts on a boar. What about the South Vietnamese countryside which the nva and the Vietcong were using as recruiting areas by stealthily sabotaging villages to turn the citizens against the Us. It sucks when you can’t identify your enemy. What about Britain and France bailing on us like bitches? What about the 15 million coup de etats in the south? What about the Buddhists being kept out of the government, and having no representation, and setting themselves on fire followed by the young generation there protesting our soldiers and the constantly-changing government? Do you really know how !@#$ing bloody complex Vietnam was? I know a lot about that war academically and I can’t grasp it all. I know this, you can’t sum that **** up in a John Wayne cowboy quote like you endeavored to do. You said a lot of cool **** in your post that to most would sound convincing. Most of it is intellectually and factually compromised unfortunately. It wasnt liberals abd cowards who wanted out of Vietnam. It was conservatives and soldiers too. Lots of them. If you knew much about the taperstry which was the Vietnam War conundrum, you might well agree. Or maybe not. What the !@#$ do I know? I’m just a humble mother!@#$er with a big ass dick. Let me know if you want to chat. Here's my NUMBER ONE rule for warfare. It supersedes all others. If you can't avoid a war, you have to win it. Now, we could have and should have avoided Vietnam. Depending on the day I may give you a different answer. But, if you get into a war, even a war you shouldn't have, you have to win. You cannot withdraw. I can point to countless examples, but after we failed to properly win the Korean War (we should have nuked China then and crushed them) we had to win Nam and didn't. The result embolden enemies of America. 'If we persist, they'll run away.' Beirut in 83 emboldened them even more. You have to win the wars you fight on your terms when possible. We paid dearly for not doing so in Nam and Korea. I've honestly only read two books on Nam, and one of them was written from the Soviet perspective and included fascinating primary sources. I have an obsession with winning wars. That's because I was in one. A small one, but I was in one. And I fought. And, I think the goal of each generation is to try and gain a little peace for the next generation. I don't want my kids fighting in the deserts of Arabia, or the Jungles of SE Asia. But when fights come, you cannot back down. You have to win. Honestly, if I could go back to the end of WWII I'd beg Truman to have handled the Soviets then, and broken them up into numerous countries. I'd have advocated for letting MacArthur nuke whatever he wanted to nuke in China. We should have never accepted Nuclear Proliferation. Yet we did. The 20th century was brutal on everybody. It is what it is, and we must move forward. But damn, I wish we won Korea and Vietnam. Anyways, you make some fascinating points and as a guy obsessed with history it was enjoyable. But I do believe we could have, and should have won Vietnam. 1 hour ago, LaDexter said: LBJ was on treasonous Zionist piece of ****, not the entire nation. Correct. Israel got the good ones... for free. ...I like Jews. Theyve never bothered me. And the fact they keep the Muslims busy makes me appreciate them even more. And by being an anti-Zionist what do you oppose? Zionism was not a reaction to the diaspora, but it was a desire for a Jewish home -- let them have a home! It was other powers that gave them Israel. Sheesh, nutty guy. 10 minutes ago, joesixpack said: How, exactly? This should be interesting. Conservatives fail to blitz black areas with campaigning because they tactically concede the demographic without a fight. I say, fight for the black vote. Traditional conservatism is way healthier than handouts.
LaDexter Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, The_Dude said: And by being an anti-Zionist what do you oppose? The assassination of JFK The deliberate murder of the USS Liberty Intentional lying about the 67 war and 'nam The 1983 truck bomb that murdered Marines in Lebanon Pan Am 103 911 all the lies used to sell out our troops in Iraq ISIS All are Israeli creations/acts..... Edited August 10, 2018 by LaDexter
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ...I like Jews. Theyve never bothered me. And the fact they keep the Muslims busy makes me appreciate them even more. And by being an anti-Zionist what do you oppose? Zionism was not a reaction to the diaspora, but it was a desire for a Jewish home -- let them have a home! It was other powers that gave them Israel. Sheesh, nutty guy. Oh, for Yahweh's sake, don't encourage him. He's even dumber and more annoying than you are.
LaDexter Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: He's even dumber and more annoying than you are Yeah, cause "The Dude" believes all the lies you and your's keep chanting.... Let's start by reminding him that the Israeli owned US media has never published anything suggesting Gaddafi was Jewish. The ISRAELI MEDIA has.... https://www.timesofisrael.com/gaddafi-killed-anyone-who-discovered-his-mother-was-jewish-claims-aide/ https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Libyas-Gaddafi-had-a-history-of-reaching-out-to-Israel-451214 https://www.hidabroot.com/article/192480/Gaddafi-is-my-Cousin-says-Elderly-Jewish-Woman https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142593 So, in other words, there is "news" for the CHOSEN and SOMETHING ELSE for the UNchosen....
Juror#8 Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Here's my NUMBER ONE rule for warfare. It supersedes all others. If you can't avoid a war, you have to win it. Now, we could have and should have avoided Vietnam. Depending on the day I may give you a different answer. But, if you get into a war, even a war you shouldn't have, you have to win. You cannot withdraw. I can point to countless examples, but after we failed to properly win the Korean War (we should have nuked China then and crushed them) we had to win Nam and didn't. The result embolden enemies of America. 'If we persist, they'll run away.' Beirut in 83 emboldened them even more. You have to win the wars you fight on your terms when possible. We paid dearly for not doing so in Nam and Korea. I've honestly only read two books on Nam, and one of them was written from the Soviet perspective and included fascinating primary sources. I have an obsession with winning wars. That's because I was in one. A small one, but I was in one. And I fought. And, I think the goal of each generation is to try and gain a little peace for the next generation. I don't want my kids fighting in the deserts of Arabia, or the Jungles of SE Asia. But when fights come, you cannot back down. You have to win. Honestly, if I could go back to the end of WWII I'd beg Truman to have handled the Soviets then, and broken them up into numerous countries. I'd have advocated for letting MacArthur nuke whatever he wanted to nuke in China. We should have never accepted Nuclear Proliferation. Yet we did. The 20th century was brutal on everybody. It is what it is, and we must move forward. But damn, I wish we won Korea and Vietnam. Anyways, you make some fascinating points and as a guy obsessed with history it was enjoyable. But I do believe we could have, and should have won Vietnam. Thank you for your candor. And thank you for your service. Im not sure that there was any “winning” Vietnam. But reasonable minds can differ and I respect our difference of opinion. The only “coherent” strategy in Vietnam was to fight to the cross-over point. You can credit Westmoreland for that little diddy. Anyway, “cross-over point” is a euphemism for “fight to the point of enemy exhaustion.” That’s incredible when you think about it. I’m also not sure if we could have nuked the north without some collateral damage to the south. Anyway, your candor is refreshing and thanks again for your service. Edited August 10, 2018 by Juror#8 1
The_Dude Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Oh, for Yahweh's sake, don't encourage him. He's even dumber and more annoying than you are. ....well that's almost a compliment. I'll take it. 1
LaDexter Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Just now, Juror#8 said: we could have and should have avoided Vietnam. But then how would LBJ arm Israel and bill the US taxpayer for it??? LBJ needed a war, an endless war, to steal our weapons and give them to ISRAEL.... https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html "Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) President Johnson was gratified that because of CIA analyses and Helms's tip, he could inform congressional leaders later in the day that he had been expecting Israel's move" Then Zionist Traitor LBJ got on TV and told the American people that Israel was attacked and was just defending itself...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Just now, LaDexter said: But then how would LBJ arm Israel and bill the US taxpayer for it??? Jif Peanut Butter sales, same as now.
Recommended Posts