Hypocrisy on the Stormy Daniels front

[OakRiver]

Does that justify people viewing him as less of an American?

I never claimed that it did, just pointing out an inconvenient fact for you, which I'm sure you were more than aware of.

So those protest signs, when were the pictures taken? Because that may give us some insight into their motives beyond assuming racism. Could these people have been unhappy with then candidate Obama calling them "bitter clingers" and were pushing back when the Birther movement was gaining traction?

I'm not necessarily playing dumb, more so than trying to get you to think outside the box. Just because Obama was black didn't mean he had to pander to Black people. He was a Democrat. Black people vote democrat. He really didn't have to do much to ensure he got the black vote. That's why, I'm asking what did he promise to black people, and why haven't I gotten whatever it was he promised, and why am just now hearing about it now? I feel kinda cheated.

So if Obama did not have to pander to POC, and the Democrats can pretty much count on the POC vote, why did POC turn out for him in overwhelming numbers compared to other Democrat candidates?

 

[trailrider]

Seems we've strayed from "Stormy Daniels"

 

[Kutnupe14]

I never claimed that it did, just pointing out an inconvenient fact for you, which I'm sure you were more than aware of.

So those protest signs, when were the pictures taken? Because that may give us some insight into their motives beyond assuming racism. Could these people have been unhappy with then candidate Obama calling them "bitter clingers" and were pushing back when the Birther movement was gaining traction?

What's inconvenient, for me, about it? Being viewed as "not quite" American because someone was born in a different nation is lightyears away belief that the exclusion from being able to attain the highest office in the land, makes one less an American. People have regularly told American born persons "Go back to XYZ" simply because of the way they look or speak.

if Obama did not have to pander to POC, and the Democrats can pretty much count on the POC vote, why did POC turn out for him in overwhelming numbers compared to other Democrat candidates?

I'll need a link and a definition of overwhelming to that claim. You're making a claim, that black voters (who traditionally vote Democrat), voted in "overwhelming" numbers for Obama compared to other Democrat candidates in the past. In order to make that case, you're going to have to show a significant uptick from when blacks voted for other Democrat candidates to them voting for Obama. And then you're going to have to reconcile that with larger disparity, over the same years, concerning the white Republican vote. Here, I'll put it to you this way, since 1976 the black Democrat vote has stayed within 8%, during that same period, the white Republican vote varied by as much as 18%. You should also note that in 1964 the black Democrat vote was at 94%, Obama in his two election years had 95% and 93%. You're making a claim on perception, not facts.

 

[Tripp11]

Someone said something the other day, that really made me stop and think. I am the FIRST person in my family to be born with the FULL rights of an American citizen. And this is despite my family being in the United States probably well longer than most (South Carolina 1790). That really hit home.

Would you provide some further detail on this comment? I am curious and would like like to read more.

 

[jamil]

Having slept on this, I’d like to restate my thoughts. I’d say that saying things one views as anti-American and then being eager to believe the person isn’t actually American is an better example of confirmation bias than racism.

Racism is the belief that a race, usually one’s own, is superior. The results of which is usually discrimination and all other more nefarious side effects, like believing that people of “inferior” races are less than human, which then enables one’s conscience to visit very dark places.

It’s worth mentioning that it’s not racism to prefer one’s own culture to another. I mean, that’s just self evident. But if one prefers a politically incorrect culture over another politically preferred culture, some people wrongly call this racism. It’s still wrong to discriminate against cultures in an oppressive way. But it’s not racist simply to prefer one’s own culture. Okay. That’s just rambling. Back to the point.

As I’ve been saying, there’s no evidence to say that the people who think Obama is Kenyan believe that their race is superior. And that’s not to say that racists aren’t eager to believe Bertherism for racist reasons. I’m sure they’re quite eager to believe Obama is Kenyan. It’s just not reasonable to assume that one *must* have racist reasons to be so eager to believe it.

I say “eager” to emphasize that to believe Obama was Kenyan requires what happens with confirmation bias. They’re eager to accept information that confirms their bias while reluctant to accept facts that disconfirms their bias. I think just to conclude that it’s as simple as that they’re racists is intellectually lazy and is perhaps confirmation bias itself that gets people there. And it’s not helpful. It’s only further divisive.

You get two sides willing to attribute such malicious motives to each other and it will just spiral downward. Maybe start assuming the other side doesn’t want to destroy you and maybe the other side might stop wanting to destroy you. Bitter clinger and basket of deplorables speeches divide and turn the people you’re ridiculing into the very people you feared they were. If you’re afraid the alt-right is growing, stop pushing people there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Would you provide some further detail on this comment? I am curious and would like like to read more.

As far as I know there's never been anyone who has actually officially addressed this subject. You could probably make a mint with that story.


For black Americans in my age group (40s), their parents would have been born in the 40s or 50s. Well before the Civil Rights acts. Obviously segregation was still in effect, and voting rights not extended to all. And segregation lasted, in someplaces, well past it's official end. The school system I attended desegregated in 1972.

It's an interesting concept, because in a way, I could say I'm a "First Generation" American, despite's my family having been here for over 200 years.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Having slept on this, I’d like to restate my thoughts. I’d say that saying things one views as anti-American and then being eager to believe the person isn’t actually American is an better example of confirmation bias than racism.

Racism is the belief that a race, usually one’s own, is superior. The results of which is usually discrimination and all other more nefarious side effects, like believing that people of “inferior” races are less than human, which then enables one’s conscience to visit very dark places.

It’s worth mentioning that it’s not racism to prefer one’s own culture to another. I mean, that’s just self evident. But if one prefers a politically incorrect culture over another politically preferred culture, some people wrongly call this racism. It’s still wrong to discriminate against cultures in an oppressive way. But it’s not racist simply to prefer one’s own culture. Okay. That’s just rambling. Back to the point.

As I’ve been saying, there’s no evidence to say that the people who think Obama is Kenyan believe that their race is superior. And that’s not to say that racists aren’t eager to believe Bertherism for racist reasons. I’m sure they’re quite eager to believe Obama is Kenyan. It’s just not reasonable to assume that one *must* have racist reasons to be so eager to believe it.

I say “eager” to emphasize that to believe Obama was Kenyan requires what happens with confirmation bias. They’re eager to accept information that confirms their bias while reluctant to accept facts that disconfirms their bias. I think just to conclude that it’s as simple as that they’re racists is intellectually lazy and is perhaps confirmation bias itself that gets people there. And it’s not helpful. It’s only further divisive.

You get two sides willing to attribute such malicious motives to each other and it will just spiral downward. Maybe start assuming the other side doesn’t want to destroy you and maybe the other side might stop wanting to destroy you. Bitter clinger and basket of deplorables speeches divide and turn the people you’re ridiculing into the very people you feared they were. If you’re afraid the alt-right is growing, stop pushing people there.

That's fair. I can accept that.

 

[BugI02]

Does that justify people viewing him as less of an American?

Would not having had a healthy dose of his policies and politics have acheived the same effect

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
So humor me, how did he get here from Kenya?

How about fly to Mexico and walk across the border into California, the way people are still doing it today


Edit: What I'm finding in the historical record is that before Hart-Celler (1965) and more to the point before the caps enacted in it on immigration took effect (1968) immigration from Mexico to the US was largely unregulated. Do you really think an American Citizen and her husband (student visa) could not cross into the US from Mexico with minimal drama (would have been 1961)

 

[printcraft]

What's inconvenient, for me, about it? Being viewed as "not quite" American because someone was born in a different nation is lightyears away belief that the exclusion from being able to attain the highest office in the land, makes one less an American. People have regularly told American born persons "Go back to XYZ" simply because of the way they look or speak.

Piers Morgan gets told “Go back to England” all the time for his opinions on our rights.

obama had and has very unpopular opinions on America. He didn’t form those ideas in America.
He wasn’t raised here. His loyalties to this country are questionable.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger were somehow able to run for President, given his opinions, he would be told to go back to Austria as well.
(It's probably something to do with his name)

 

[OakRiver]

What's inconvenient, for me, about it? Being viewed as "not quite" American because someone was born in a different nation is lightyears away belief that the exclusion from being able to attain the highest office in the land, makes one less an American. People have regularly told American born persons "Go back to XYZ" simply because of the way they look or speak.

Speaking of inconvenient you managed to avoid the following; "So those protest signs, when were the pictures taken? Because that may give us some insight into their motives beyond assuming racism. Could these people have been unhappy with then candidate Obama calling them "bitter clingers" and were pushing back when the Birther movement was gaining traction?"

I'll need a link and a definition of overwhelming to that claim. You're making a claim, that black voters (who traditionally vote Democrat), voted in "overwhelming" numbers for Obama compared to other Democrat candidates in the past. In order to make that case, you're going to have to show a significant uptick from when blacks voted for other Democrat candidates to them voting for Obama. And then you're going to have to reconcile that with larger disparity, over the same years, concerning the white Republican vote. Here, I'll put it to you this way, since 1976 the black Democrat vote has stayed within 8%, during that same period, the white Republican vote varied by as much as 18%. You should also note that in 1964 the black Democrat vote was at 94%, Obama in his two election years had 95% and 93%. You're making a claim on perception, not facts.

Perception and no facts? Inside Obama?s Sweeping Victory | Pew Research Center

In 2004 GW Bush got 11% of the POC vote, Kerry got 88% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/). In 2008 McCain got 4% of the POC vote while Obama got 95% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/). In 2012 Romney got 6% of the POC vote, Obama got 93% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/)

https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr09-688.pdf - "With respect tovoter margins (percent voting for Obama minus percent voting for McCain), he won blacks,
Hispanics and Asians. (See Figure 1.) In each case, he did better in 2008 than Kerry did in 2004.
Moreover, whites voted Republican less than was the case in 2004.
These voting margins become magnified when we consider that minorities comprised a larger
part of the voter base in 2008. Two million more blacks voted in 2008 than in 2004, as well as
almost 2 million more Hispanics and close to a million more Asians. "

The facts are very clearly on my side. Now, if Obama did not have to pander to POC, and the Democrats can pretty much count on the POC vote, why did POC turn out for him in overwhelming numbers compared to other Democrat candidates?

 

[churchmouse]

OK. What about this stormy danials thing.

 

[Trigger Time]

Shes a ho

 

[Trigger Time]

Gotta love how they are giving her big bodyguards and dressing her like a corporate secretary and most likely instructing her not to wear any bold makeup. I'm gonna bet we are being duped here.

If I saw stormy Daniel's out in public somewhere, for 1 I wouldnt recognize her, and if I did I would tie off for fear of falling in.
2. I'd give her a cheeseburger and tell her where the food pantry is

 

[churchmouse]

Gotta love how they are giving her big bodyguards and dressing her like a corporate secretary and most likely instructing her not to wear any bold makeup. I'm gonna bet we are being duped here.

If I saw stormy Daniel's out in public somewhere, for 1 I wouldnt recognize her, and if I did I would tie off for fear of falling in.
2. I'd give her a cheeseburger and tell her where the food pantry is

I am not surprised but there is something here. The witch hunt was extended into this so they could get deeper into things that have no merit as to the original “Russian” thing that had zero merit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Speaking of inconvenient you managed to avoid the following; "So those protest signs, when were the pictures taken? Because that may give us some insight into their motives beyond assuming racism. Could these people have been unhappy with then candidate Obama calling them "bitter clingers" and were pushing back when the Birther movement was gaining traction?"

He made the "Bitter clingers" argument in 2008. Conventional wisdom would assume most of those signs were made after that statement. I honestly doubt that these persons were making these signs with the memory of "bitter clingers," on their minds. I think they were clear on the overtones expressed when they made them.

Perception and no facts? Inside Obama?s Sweeping Victory | Pew Research Center

In 2004 GW Bush got 11% of the POC vote, Kerry got 88% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/). In 2008 McCain got 4% of the POC vote while Obama got 95% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/). In 2012 Romney got 6% of the POC vote, Obama got 93% (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/)

https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr09-688.pdf - "With respect tovoter margins (percent voting for Obama minus percent voting for McCain), he won blacks,
Hispanics and Asians. (See Figure 1.) In each case, he did better in 2008 than Kerry did in 2004.
Moreover, whites voted Republican less than was the case in 2004.
These voting margins become magnified when we consider that minorities comprised a larger
part of the voter base in 2008. Two million more blacks voted in 2008 than in 2004, as well as
almost 2 million more Hispanics and close to a million more Asians. "

The facts are very clearly on my side. Now, if Obama did not have to pander to POC, and the Democrats can pretty much count on the POC vote, why did POC turn out for him in overwhelming numbers compared to other Democrat candidates?

So you're saying that FIRST non-white legitimate presidential candidate would have to pander to POC in order for them to come out and vote in higher numbers than they have traditionally? That doesn't make sense. Voters have traditionally voted in larger numbers when a particular candidate is seen as sharing similarities with them. This is evident when candidates from certain regions are able to swap get states to swap parties. There's no need to pander, when people think "you're like them."

But, since you said Obama pandered to POC, and considering Asians were the POC who had the most significant change, illustrate that pandering. It has to exist, right? I'm asking for proof of such pandering, specifically to POC.

 

[nonobaddog]

But, since you said Obama pandered to POC, and considering Asians were the POC who had the most significant change, illustrate that pandering. It has to exist, right? I'm asking for proof of such pandering, specifically to POC.

Why the double standards? You use "conventional wisdom" and "assumptions" to make your assertions. Yet you ask for "proof" from others. That hardly seems like this "fairness" you speak of.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I am not surprised but there is something here. The witch hunt was extended into this so they could get deeper into things that have no merit as to the original “Russian” thing that had zero merit.

Deeper you say?

 

[churchmouse]

Deeper you say?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why the double standards? You use "conventional wisdom" and "assumptions" to make your assertions. Yet you ask for "proof" from others. That hardly seems like this "fairness" you speak of.

You've got to be kidding. Namely because there is no "proof" to determined. All beliefs associated with those pictures, made by third parties, are opinions. I don't care if those pictures were before the statement or after the statement, I view the people holding them in the exact same way.