Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Chizzang wrote:I liked this article - anything poking at the media entertains me

"White Americans make up nearly 70% of all eligible voters, and of that enormous group of people, 63% of white men and 53% of white women voted for Trump. "

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/i ... ite-people

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I liked this article - anything poking at the media entertains me

"White Americans make up nearly 70% of all eligible voters, and of that enormous group of people, 63% of white men and 53% of white women voted for Trump. "

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/i ... ite-people

So it's article number 4625583 in the "it was the basket of deplorables.... (and they're ALL deplorable)"... just couched in a different way.

I like articles like this, too

93henfan wrote:What a stupid article. It harps on a 21% delta in white R voters over white D voters while conveniently avoiding the 80% delta in black D voters over black R voters and the 36% delta in hispanic D voters over hispanic R voters.

Then it goes on to quote a supporters of reparations.

Agenda, anyone? Derp.

Ivytalk wrote:JSO in 3-2-1...

JohnStOnge wrote: The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

JohnStOnge wrote: The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW:

CAA Flagship wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe?

The economy.

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Sanders added that Trump won “because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.” That anger, he implied, was an anger at the “wealthy and corporate interests” being valued over the needs of the people.

But to discuss socioeconomic class as a single defining issue—as Sanders does—is to gravely underestimate how intersecting forms of oppression work. Social class and income have an enormous impact on a person’s quality of life, but changing them won’t magically erase other forms of marginalization. In fact, in many instances, marginalization unrelated to class or income is what leads people to live in poverty. As Ta Nehisi Coates outlines in his brilliant essay “The Case for Reparations,” it is anti-Black legislation in America that has largely been responsible for the economic suppression of Black people. Taking on Wall Street may do a lot to alleviate some of the stressors in people’s lives, but that action alone won’t end social ills like racism.

93henfan wrote:What a stupid article. It harps on a 21% delta in white R voters over white D voters while conveniently avoiding the 80% delta in black D voters over black R voters and the 36% delta in hispanic D voters over hispanic R voters.

Then it goes on to quote a supporters of reparations. Another gem: "the good whites, the educated whites, the liberal whites."

Agenda, anyone? Derp.

Pwns wrote:Before you judge walk a mile in the shoes of a black person with a stable income whose kids will get favoritism over yours in college admissions 'cuz diversity. I'm sure you wouldn't trade places with them. And if you have any problem with this and push back against it you're just a hateful bigot.

Cluck U wrote:
Chizzy can't have kids, so he doesn't give a rat's arse about the future. He'll die smarmy and alone.

God has decided to cut off that gene pool...and for good reason.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW:

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
So it's article number 4625583 in the "it was the basket of deplorables.... (and they're ALL deplorable)"... just couched in a different way.

I like articles like this, too

I don't think you read it very closely did you...

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:JSO in 3-2-1...

Well, it's true in one sense but you could get more specific. It was White Evangelical Christians. The majority of Whites who are not White Evangelical Christians voted for Clinton.

To me that's the big obvious thing that's receiving little attention. White Evangelical Christians voted more overwhelmingly for Trump than they did for G.W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. And without that happening Trump would've had absolutely no shot. And it was reasonable to think, before the fact, that it wouldn't happen because Trump is such an atrocity. You would not think any "moral" person would support him.

The question is: Why did they do that? Why did they line up so strongly behind someone who is an ‎anathema to everything they claim to be believe? And, no, it wasn't the economy. White Evangelical Christians didn't vote for Trump over Clinton by 80% to 16% because of the economy.

Pwns wrote:

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Sanders added that Trump won “because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.” That anger, he implied, was an anger at the “wealthy and corporate interests” being valued over the needs of the people.

But to discuss socioeconomic class as a single defining issue—as Sanders does—is to gravely underestimate how intersecting forms of oppression work. Social class and income have an enormous impact on a person’s quality of life, but changing them won’t magically erase other forms of marginalization. In fact, in many instances, marginalization unrelated to class or income is what leads people to live in poverty. As Ta Nehisi Coates outlines in his brilliant essay “The Case for Reparations,” it is anti-Black legislation in America that has largely been responsible for the economic suppression of Black people. Taking on Wall Street may do a lot to alleviate some of the stressors in people’s lives, but that action alone won’t end social ills like racism.

Translation: All you Bubbas and Jim Bobs struggling to make ends meet need to check your privilege. When you're black mall security follows you for no reason, policemen (allegedly) pull you over just for being black, and policemen shoot young black men for no reason (we've given a lot of false alarms of this lately, but believe us!). You're poor because you're a hateful, ignorant hilljack that only cares about God and guns but those blacks are poor because someone once called them the N-word and someone once dressed up as a young urban black male for Halloween. Also stuff that happened 100-200 years ago you had nothing to do with. Before you judge walk a mile in the shoes of a black person with a stable income whose kids will get favoritism over yours in college admissions 'cuz diversity. I'm sure you wouldn't trade places with them. And if you have any problem with this and push back against it you're just a hateful bigot.