If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm talking about why whites flooded to pull the lever for him. Whites seemed to believe that simply by electing a black president they were solving racism. Don't forget that a huge chunk of the whites who voted for Barrack Obama also voted for Donald Trump.

Racism at the heart of American politics doesn't just mean that people vote against blacks or whites for racial reasons, it also goes the other way.

The people that voted for Obama and then Trump did so more because of the outsider status. Obama was the new guy that took down the Clinton machine the first time and even ran on an anti-NAFTA, populist platform. I've never seen anything suggesting that white guilt was why Obama won.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

The people that voted for Obama did so more because of the outsider status .

Lmfao.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Lmfao.

First off, nice selective edit of my post. I'm not saying Obama really was an outsider; obviously he was a fairly ordinary Democratic neoliberal in practice, just younger and slightly darker. But that's how he marketed himself during the 2008 primaries in contrast to Clinton. I knew a fair number of Democrats online around 2008 that were afraid he was too far-left to win against a more moderate Republican like McCain.

 

[Einherjar86]

what's your opinion on the piece and maybe Coates in general? More interesting than what else is going on as of late

I like Coates. Packer's response highlighted a lot of problems I have with his writing though, especially the most recent piece. In general, I find Coates's writing provocative in a good way, but that has more to do with my politics than with my assessment of his writing. As a writer, he's a polemicist. I don't think he presents rational arguments, mostly just a compelling cultural perspective. There's something valuable in that kind of writing even if it wouldn't pass muster in an academic journal.

The recent piece made me raise my eyebrow a couple times, mainly for the reasons that Packer underlines.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

selective editing? I just took out Trumps name because i agreed with that part. Doesn't change the fact that you implied the same thing for obama ... which is fucking hilarious, and once again shows just how disconnected from reality you are

edit: Everyone knows that the main reason he got in the white house was because he's black. And are you implying "white guilt" had nothing to do with a huge chunk of the people that voted for him?

 

[rms]

I like Coates. Packer's response highlighted a lot of problems I have with his writing though, especially the most recent piece. In general, I find Coates's writing provocative in a good way, but that has more to do with my politics than with my assessment of his writing. As a writer, he's a polemicist. I don't think he presents rational arguments, mostly just a compelling cultural perspective. There's something valuable in that kind of writing even if it wouldn't pass muster in an academic journal.

The recent piece made me raise my eyebrow a couple times, mainly for the reasons that Packer underlines.

I haven't checked out his latest because I assumed it was just attributing Trump as the anti-Obama which I agree with, but the rebuttal is something I notice with a lot of race writers these days and I imagine gender follows the same archetype

 

[HamburgerBoy]

selective editing? I just took out Trumps name because i agreed with that part. Doesn't change the fact that you implied the same thing for obama ... which is fucking hilarious, and once again shows just how disconnected from reality you are

edit: Everyone knows that the main reason he got in the white house was because he's black. And are you implying "white guilt" had nothing to do with a huge chunk of the people that voted for him?

CASSETTE was referring to people that voted for Obama AND Trump, hence "people that voted for Obama and then Trump"

If you have evidence that white guilt caused whites to vote for Obama, provide it. I'd say the most obvious reason Obama won was because he was following a presidency worse than most of the 20th century.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"if you have evidence"? you cant possibly be that retarded can you? Do you think people checked in some magic "voting for him because of white guilt" box on some type of form or poll? You want me to prove something that you have witnessed and seen with your own eyes? Lmao. You constantly keep proving just how much of a fucking idiot you are.

and i said a huge chunk btw, never said it was the only reason.

Oh and once again lol @ you saying Obama = outsider status

 

[Dak]

a presidency worse than most of the 20th century.

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th? I see him as just more of the same. Even Reagan and Eisenhower had their issues.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th?

He's far from it actually.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What makes W worse than the litany of failures in the 20th? I see him as just more of the same. Even Reagan and Eisenhower had their issues.

I'm using "presidency" to mean the duration of time over which a man was president. Two unpopular wars and the economy falling apart right at the end of his tenure made him justifiably hated, even if he didn't do much in terms lasting negative policy (though I'd argue he still did with the Patriot Act/DHS, plus Medicare Part D). I'm surprised to see TechBarb defending a Zionist puppet.

Reagan had a great presidency, even though he amped up the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, Islamic terrorism, government overspending, and other things. The economy improved under him (thanks, computers), he "ended communism" (thanks, communism), etc. Overall a damaging president and overcredited, but the effects of his negative policies fell on others. He, of course, was elected because of the crap presidency of Carter, even though Carter was one of the best presidents and had some of the best policies of the 20th century.

My personal bottom three from 1900 to present would probably be FDR, Truman, and LBJ, two of whom enjoyed massively successful presidencies. Eisenhower comes close to the other three though. Terrible period for most of the world.

 

[CiG]

The people that voted for Obama and then Trump did so more because of the outsider status. Obama was the new guy that took down the Clinton machine the first time and even ran on an anti-NAFTA, populist platform. I've never seen anything suggesting that white guilt was why Obama won.

How can you shoot down my claim that race was a major motivator in voting for Barrack Obama with a claim of your own just as unsubstantiated?

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama are almost completely interchangeable to me, however Barrack Obama promised change and I think white America, especially back then, had race fatigue.

It was like a mass virtue-signal.

 

[Dak]

I'm using "presidency" to mean the duration of time over which a man was president. Two unpopular wars and the economy falling apart right at the end of his tenure made him justifiably hated, even if he didn't do much in terms lasting negative policy (though I'd argue he still did with the Patriot Act/DHS, plus Medicare Part D). I'm surprised to see TechBarb defending a Zionist puppet.

Reagan had a great presidency, even though he amped up the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, Islamic terrorism, government overspending, and other things. The economy improved under him (thanks, computers), he "ended communism" (thanks, communism), etc. Overall a damaging president and overcredited, but the effects of his negative policies fell on others. He, of course, was elected because of the crap presidency of Carter, even though Carter was one of the best presidents and had some of the best policies of the 20th century.

My personal bottom three from 1900 to present would probably be FDR, Truman, and LBJ, two of whom enjoyed massively successful presidencies. Eisenhower comes close to the other three though. Terrible period for most of the world.

You are making no sense at all in this post.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How can you shoot down my claim that race was a major motivator in voting for Barrack Obama with a claim of your own just as unsubstantiated?

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama are almost completely interchangeable to me, however Barrack Obama promised change and I think white America, especially back then, had race fatigue.

It was like a mass virtue-signal.

Because

1. The whites that both Obama and Trump won have a blue-collar, protectionist background in common
2. Obama actually won the primary, not Clinton
3. The same whites that voted for Trump abandoned Obama in 2012 (but not the upper-class ones to nearly the same extent)

http://news.gallup.com/poll/155156/obama-white-base-shows-cracks-compared-2008.aspx

Obama Loses Support Among Low-Income Whites

There was a modest income skew in Obama's support among whites in 2008, but that has largely disappeared in the recent 2012 data, given the larger-than-average declines in support seen for him among low-income whites.

Obama's support is down nine points among those earning less than $24,000 as well as among those earning $24,000 to $59,999 per year. At the same time, his support among higher-income Americans is down only three points.

All those virtue-signalling Walmart greeters, amirite?

You are making no sense at all in this post.

Sure thing

 

[no country for old wainds]

 

[Mort Divine]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You are making no sense at all in this post.

because he usually does, right?

 

[CiG]

K.K. Warslut is my hero.

 

[Dak]

Because
Sure thing

because he usually does, right?

HBB seems to have serious issues with categorization and labeling that are not limited to any one sphere. Labeling something a "presidency" which is independent of the president, odd "genrezation" of metal, arguing about empire vs country, etc.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Secret Facebook Page Reveals Marvel, DC Comics Writers Conspiring to Harass Comic-Con Conservatives