BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

These topics weren't as big 5 years ago as they are now, some of them didn't even exist back then. Alot has changed in American politics in such a short time.

right. in the last 5-years the democratic party has become 'anti-white' and the shadowy 'Left' are staging all sorts of shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

democracy is supposed to be representative. how many native american women are there? how many elected representatives have they had? how many black or hispanic women are there in the USA? how many of them have held senior office? why is this 'anti-white'? you are a fucking dope.

also, the part of the democratic party that people like ocasio-cortez represent is hardly 'mainstream' establishment democrats. Hillary and co. are not exactly leftist insurrectionists.

Last edited by uziq (2018-11-16 10:24:22)

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

right. in the last 5-years the democratic party has become 'anti-white' and the shadowy 'Left' are staging all sorts of shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

democracy is supposed to be representative. how many native american women are there? how many elected representatives have they had? how many black or hispanic women are there in the USA? how many of them have held senior office? why is this 'anti-white'? you are a fucking dope.

also, the part of the democratic party that people like ocasio-cortez represent is hardly 'mainstream' establishment democrats. Hillary and co. are not exactly leftist insurrectionists.

It should be meritocratic, not affirmative action based. If a black female is the best for the job, please vote her in. If she isn't, then don't. Racial quotas are racist.

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

right. in the last 5-years the democratic party has become 'anti-white' and the shadowy 'Left' are staging all sorts of shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

democracy is supposed to be representative. how many native american women are there? how many elected representatives have they had? how many black or hispanic women are there in the USA? how many of them have held senior office? why is this 'anti-white'? you are a fucking dope.

also, the part of the democratic party that people like ocasio-cortez represent is hardly 'mainstream' establishment democrats. Hillary and co. are not exactly leftist insurrectionists.

There's a complete lack of women in sanitation, lets force some women to have that job and make sure it is about half women and half men. It is all in the name of equal representation in sanitation!

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

democracy is supposed to be representative. how many native american women are there? how many elected representatives have they had? how many black or hispanic women are there in the USA? how many of them have held senior office? why is this 'anti-white'? you are a fucking dope.

also, the part of the democratic party that people like ocasio-cortez represent is hardly 'mainstream' establishment democrats. Hillary and co. are not exactly leftist insurrectionists.

There's a complete lack of women in sanitation, lets force some women to have that job and make sure it is about half women and half men. It is all in the name of equal representation in sanitation!

you seem to have some fundamental issues in understanding what a democracy is. i'm not saying we should have 50:50 ratios of coal miners between the sexes, or that i am passionate about seeing as many indian caretakers as african-american caretakers. why is it so disagreeable to you that people are celebrating the increasing numbers of women, ethnic minorities, gay etc people reaching elected positions? nobody is being picked for these jobs 'just because', as affirmative action. get real. people like ocasio-cortez got voted in because they connected with a demographic base. it just so happens that there are a lot of voting age, educated women who think that educated women of their peer group can do as good a job at politics as the educated men. shocking, i know.

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

coke wrote:

How is getting "people of colour" elected via free elections racist exactly?

You sound like to should be posting on some incel message board or something ffs.

Sorry you missed the additional video. CNN's Don Lemon, this is a guy that suggests we stop demonizing people only to demonize white men shortly afterwards by calling them terrorists.

Just hear him at 23 second mark. And no I don't watch RT, I just was digging for the video where he says the comment. Couldn't find the entire Chris Cuomo video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQCH6fjxttY

This is a guy that has white boyfriend if you want added irony.

the guy is quite literally correct. there is a huge bias and representation problem in the media wherein 'terrorists' are expected to be arab-looking men with beards. there's almost a grace period with every shooting or public incident where people are waiting with their 'i told you so, religion of peace!!!' faces on (until told otherwise). the guy is citing a statistical fact which cannot be disagreed with. how is it racist to say that white males are the biggest terrorist threat in the states?

also it's funny that you're citing an organisation as bias and shady as fucking RT when you're suspicious of american mainstream media. wow.

You really need to fucking read, I am well aware of RT. I just wanted to find something that had his exact fucking quote and couldn't find the Chris Cuomo video

And no I don't watch RT, I just was digging for the video where he says the comment.

^ See? I even highlighted the quote where it was said.

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

democracy is supposed to be representative. how many native american women are there? how many elected representatives have they had? how many black or hispanic women are there in the USA? how many of them have held senior office? why is this 'anti-white'? you are a fucking dope.

also, the part of the democratic party that people like ocasio-cortez represent is hardly 'mainstream' establishment democrats. Hillary and co. are not exactly leftist insurrectionists.

There's a complete lack of women in sanitation, lets force some women to have that job and make sure it is about half women and half men. It is all in the name of equal representation in sanitation!

you seem to have some fundamental issues in understanding what a democracy is. i'm not saying we should have 50:50 ratios of coal miners between the sexes, or that i am passionate about seeing as many indian caretakers as african-american caretakers. why is it so disagreeable to you that people are celebrating the increasing numbers of women, ethnic minorities, gay etc people reaching elected positions? nobody is being picked for these jobs 'just because', as affirmative action. get real. people like ocasio-cortez got voted in because they connected with a demographic base. it just so happens that there are a lot of voting age, educated women who think that educated women of their peer group can do as good a job at politics as the educated men. shocking, i know.

Because it should be irrelevant. Politics should be dry and about policy. When you make appeals to people on an emotional level, and that is precisely what you are doing when you advocate for a certain race, gender or sexual orientation you are asking people to become emotionally invested because they can see themselves within the person they are voting for. This is playing with fire. When people become emotionally invested in the outcome of a particular political race and their candidate loses, it leads to the hatred we are seeing now across the board. It leads to the rise of populism. Politics has become pop culture and one side has decided that the best way to win this pop culture war is to put everyone into neat little boxes that check off certain demographic boxes and exclude the rest. The excluded become angry, even if they are in the majority. Especially if they've been the majority.

How many hundreds of articles implored women to vote with their vaginas for Hillary Clinton? How many hundreds of articles were written post-election calling women who did not vote with their vaginas traitors to their own sex? This is the garbage we don't need.

Last edited by Jay (2018-11-16 12:14:04)

War Man wrote:

uziq wrote:

War Man wrote:

These topics weren't as big 5 years ago as they are now, some of them didn't even exist back then. Alot has changed in American politics in such a short time.

right. in the last 5-years the democratic party has become 'anti-white' and the shadowy 'Left' are staging all sorts of shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

Hmm I just noticed all of the women of color that were elected had more European features than their racial group. Light skinned, straight hair, etc. Even the lady in the video is a mulatto. The black lady who lost the Georgia gov race is a black-black lady with chocolate skin and frizzled hair and lost. The Native American lady even has a white name. There was a New York Times article by a mulatto woman who pointed out that all of the barrier breaking blacks happened to be mulatto too. No big nosed afro'd chocolate women in congress yet.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

War Man wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMS4PHApQNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G6i9ykunw

Yes, democrats are not anti-white, not racist. Nope

Hmm I just noticed all of the women of color that were elected had more European features than their racial group. Light skinned, straight hair, etc. Even the lady in the video is a mulatto. The black lady who lost the Georgia gov race is a black-black lady with chocolate skin and frizzled hair and lost. The Native American lady even has a white name. There was a New York Times article by a mulatto woman who pointed out that all of the barrier breaking blacks happened to be mulatto too. No big nosed afro'd chocolate women in congress yet.

Maxine Waters?

That's one, sure.

But you know that isn't her hair right? And she still is a shade lighter than average anyway.

Jay wrote:

How many hundreds of articles implored women to vote with their vaginas for Hillary Clinton? How many hundreds of articles were written post-election calling women who did not vote with their vaginas traitors to their own sex? This is the garbage we don't need.

It's not exactly voting for Clinton purely because she happened to be a woman, though. The same wasn't said for Palin, who would have also been the highest office to which a woman would be elected at the time. You, as a woman, would vote for her because Clinton would be at least sympathetic to your interests. It's why the rural Kentuckians wouldn't vote for a slick Berkeley liberal. You wouldn't think that person knows what sort of shit happens in your life. Especially with Trump compared to the average pre-2016 Republican, it's harder for a woman to consider the man and think his being elected would be beneficial in her life. You could quite easily argue she would be voting against her own self-interest unless she's super anti-abortion.

jay complains about affirmative action and grumbles now that 4 women of colour get elected to office, moans about ‘emotionalism’ in politics, as if the majority of white america in the kennedy–nixon era were deciding between matters of ‘dry policy’. lmao. i cannot think of a single time that american politics has ever been about dry doctrine - the bigger value narratives and ideological struggles have always been the excitement. the only problem really is that now his antique ideology is going under the waves.

Last edited by uziq (2018-11-17 00:57:12)

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

jay complains about affirmative action and grumbles now that 4 women of colour get elected to office, moans about ‘emotionalism’ in politics, as if the majority of white america in the kennedy–nixon era were deciding between matters of ‘dry policy’. lmao. i cannot think of a single time that american politics has ever been about dry doctrine - the bigger value narratives and ideological struggles have always been the excitement. the only problem really is that now his antique ideology is going under the waves.

I'm not complaining that women were elected to office.

you're talking about people getting office because of 'affirmative action', as if congress is ran like an admissions office to an ivy league college (just like those nice young men whose grandfathers and fathers went  ... but i digress). sure, it's pretty obvious that there's an ideological drive to get certain demographics represented, but i hardly see how it's upending or breaking the entire system. people have been voting for less-than-credible reasons between two variations of white male vanilla for most of the history of your country -- have they always been the meritocratic option, which surely presupposes some sort of equal playing field and equality of opportunity? a little democratic and electoral activism isn't going to hurt the body politic. honestly i don't know why people like you get so butthurt over it. when is the last time you honestly voted for someone because they were the most qualified and meritorious of the lot? as opposed to self-interest (where are my tax breaks/how does it this affect my household budget) or emotionalism (i just can't stand that woman, etc).

at least the people antagonising for better representation of women and minorities are honest and, given the benefit of the doubt, noble in their intentions. you couch your own brand of ideological self-interest and bullshittery in highfalutin' nonsense like 'politics should be about policy'. as if the presidential race hasn't been a mutant freakshow of big money funding interests and celebrity-style television popularity contests since at least the black-and-white era.

Last edited by uziq (2018-11-17 03:41:28)

Shahter wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@zeek:
i'm pretty sure i never said i was looking for wisdom in first-person opinions of the likes of war man. and yes, i'm capable of finding out for myself whatever it is that gets pushed by the western propaganda mashine media. it's all the same now in the opinion columns out there and more often than not after reading a couple of opening statements i can easily tell what's to follow. it's kinda dissapointing, actually.
what's interesting for me is what actually sticks. that's why i'm interested in opinions of real people who don't have editors looking over their shoulder.

I think what's bugging me is your notion that a "first hand opinion" as you put it is somehow more valid because it isn't being paid for

"valid" is not the word i'd use. it's more useful for one who views the system from outside and wishes to understand its inner workings.

while at the same time admitting that these first hand opinions are influenced by the "system." How do you manage to reconcile this conundrum?

as i said above, i'm capable of reading news myself, what i don't have is war man's level of immersion in events which happen on the other side of the globe from where i am, in society and culture so vastly different from that i live in. social media doesn't help either, because it's fast becoming just another information manipulation tool. it's not enough to simply soak in the propaganda to get educated on matters like politics, one needs to ground that stuff in somekinda real life experience, and this fossil of a forum, interestingly, is better place for me to find actual opinions of actual people of whom i can be reasonably sure i know things, than, basically, anywhere else, because these people have been here exchanging opinions for so long.

Who should we trust more, a professional political analyst or some random angry meathead being spoonfed their opinions, devoid of critical thought, by a faux debate talk radio show hosted by someone basically playing a character? The first is paid for, and the second you can get whenever you look like someone who will offer an ear to disgruntled griping.

well, first, you definitely shouldn't trust anything pushed through your fucking media atm, imo. all the principals of honest and professional journalism have long been abandoned by them (that is if there were any to begin with).
and, second, as i said, i'm not simply looking for info, not really. imagine you are examining a mad house - would you actually be interested to know which napolen bonaparte in there has journalism degree?

…

Opinions being more "useful" from a lay perspective is a sweeping generalization that is wrong in so many cases. I don't understand how the half-digested second and third hand opinions through the lens of Joe Average are somehow more real and trustworthy by default just because they've passed through his system. You don't trust media but you'll trust the drifting thoughts of someone whose opinions at some point stem from media?

By all means analyze what you read to the best of your capabilities but I see no reason why I should for example respect the insight of a short order cook over an oncologist's about tumors just because they've glossed over a few articles on the internet and come to the educated conclusion that crystal therapy was the solution and that surgery is propaganda.

Maybe on something completely subjective like preference for raspberry or strawberry jam on waffles.

Oh it has? Have you checked your 401K lately?