PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what you're insinuating is that everyone at that NAACP convention was going in with an open mind and there is actually something Romney could have said to win their vote.

So a different leaning group from the asshat that's speaking condescendingly to said group makes them a hate group.

meh
 
So what you're insinuating is that everyone at that NAACP convention was going in with an open mind and there is actually something Romney could have said to win their vote.

Actually what I am saying is--- wait what the fuck I am responding to a Kosmo post. Nevermind.
 
So what you're insinuating is that everyone at that NAACP convention was going in with an open mind and there is actually something Romney could have said to win their vote.

Well, let's not play games. Romney didn't go to the NAACP to win their votes, either. Ignoring the question of whether Romney is a racist (he probably is, though, given that the LDS was officially racist until 1978), he would have to be an idiot to think that he was going to peel off black votes from Obama, especially given his essentially complete retreat from attempting to get Latino votes, which are obviously more separable.

But Romney got exactly what he wanted -- a couple of videos where a bunch of black people boo him while he is apparently polite and courteous to them. Remember who Romney's base is, after all. This is meat and drink for them.
 
what the fuck does this even mean? Booing Romney's position on Obamacare is expected of a hate group...what the hell? I have many problems with the NAACP, which I have expressed to members in person. But to call them a hate group is just stupid

What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?
 
Do mock my auto spell check.
JSQixt.png
 
What Everyone was saying is that Obama should not have even wasted his time because the Tea Party is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican party.

.
 
What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?

Perhaps because they think the Democrats are the best shot for the advancement of colored people? Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

In any event it doesn't make them a hate group. That's just stupid.
 
What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?

Sooo, do you agree with Meyers that NAACP is a hate group? Is Meyers an incorruptible source of authority on race relations in America?
 
Well, let's not play games. Romney didn't go to the NAACP to win their votes, either. Ignoring the question of whether Romney is a racist (he probably is, though, given that the LDS was officially racist until 1978), he would have to be an idiot to think that he was going to peel off black votes from Obama, especially given his essentially complete retreat from attempting to get Latino votes, which are obviously more separable.

But Romney got exactly what he wanted -- a couple of videos where a bunch of black people boo him while he is apparently polite and courteous to them. Remember who Romney's base is, after all. This is meat and drink for them.

I don't think Romney is a racist. Didn't you hear the story Romney told about how he pulled over his car and started crying in joy when he heard about how his church decided to stop being racists?
 
What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?

How is the Republican party supporting the advancement of colored people?
 
What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?

Kosmo, please tell me how to properly support the advancement of colored people.
 
What Meyers was saying is that Romney should not have even wasted his time because the NAACP is never going to vote for him and that they demonize anyone they don't agree with to the extent that it is pure hate and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

It has gotten to the point that they vilify African-Americans who aren't lock-step with the Democratic agenda. How is that supporting the "advancement of colored people"?

Do you agree with any of that, I'm curious. I see no problem with vehemently opposing black politicians who advocate positions that would hurt black people, and I'd disagree that they vilify them anymore than any special interest group does its opponents.

My problem with the NAACP is that they seem to think advancing black people is entirely based on interracial issues; and by interracial I don't mean the good Lexington Steel type, but instead in terms of focusing too much on what white people are doing, saying. I would much rather see an NAACP focused on education, addressing black on black violence, AIDS/HIV, single parenthood, and other issues instead of just focusing on what the white man has done to fuck us over. That's not to say I think the NAACP should not be involved in civil justice matters btw, just that we need to look within our community as well as outside of it.
 
So what you're insinuating is that everyone at that NAACP convention was going in with an open mind and there is actually something Romney could have said to win their vote.

Yes, he could have offered an alternate healthcare plan and law instead of just saying he wants to repeal Obamacare.

He could have talked about how government jobs are important to Black community.

He could have not told them basically that they will vote for Obama because he is Black.
 
TPM is becoming insufferable. Not that article, but the various ones with clear narrative dominating intentions. Every move Obama makes is a master stroke, ridiculous stories are based off little evidence ("three republicans defend Obamacare...vulnerable republicans moving to support Obamacare!"). I visit the site daily but it's getting annoying

Umm...probably because lately Obama has been at the top of his game. I mean...we are already not talking about Friday's job numbers.

They have had plenty of articles on Obama missteps too and talking up Romney has being the favorite. They have even had articles pointing out times where Dems supported cuts to the program last year but didn't do it this year to pass the Student loan rates.
 
Some pollolololols. Big dump today:

PPP Wisconsin

Obama 50
Romney 44

PPP North Carolina Governor

Pat McCrory (R) 43
Walter Dalton (D) 36

We Ask America

Pennsylvania

Obama 47
Romney 40

(Senate)
Bob Casey (D) 53
Tom Smith (R) 39

New Mexico

Obama 51
Romney 40

(Senate)
Martin Heinrich (D) 51
Heather Wilson (R) 42

Priorities USA

Colorado
Obama 49
Romney 42

Florida
Obama 48
Romney 44

Ohio
Obama 48
Romney 41

Pennsylvania
Obama 49
Romney 40

Virginia
Obama 46
Romney 43
 
Umm...probably because lately Obama has been at the top of his game. I mean...we are already not talking about Friday's job numbers.

They have had plenty of articles on Obama missteps too and talking up Romney has being the favorite. They have even had articles pointing out times where Dems supported cuts to the program last year but didn't do it this year to pass the Student loan rates.

That may have more to do with who posts in this thread than Obama being at the top of his game. Romney's struggles are due to his own problems, not anything fantastic that Obama is doing.
 
Some pollolololols. Big dump today:

PPP Wisconsin

Obama 50
Romney 44

PPP North Carolina Governor

Pat McCrory (R) 43
Walter Dalton (D) 36

We Ask America

Pennsylvania

Obama 47
Romney 40

(Senate)
Bob Casey (D) 53
Tom Smith (R) 39

New Mexico

Obama 51
Romney 40

(Senate)
Martin Heinrich (D) 51
Heather Wilson (R) 42

Priorities USA

Colorado
Obama 49
Romney 42

Florida
Obama 48
Romney 44

Ohio
Obama 48
Romney 41

Pennsylvania
Obama 49
Romney 40

Virginia
Obama 46
Romney 43
I thought We Ask America is a crap pollster?
 
MULaw is dripping it's latest poll on Twitter. Showing a tightening race (but not tied as the one you mentioned yesterday). 35-23 Thompson-Hovde with Neumann and Fitz both losing support (10/6 respectively).
Their last poll showed a big electability gap between Thompson and Hovde, not the same like PPP had yesterday. I wonder if that holds in their poll.
 
Then you've got me wrong - I'm socially liberal - I just don't think that means that you have to throw tons of government money at supporting that stance.

At least you're referring to money correctly now. What would like to throw government money at? You know, it has to be thrown at something for it to be available for the private sector to use.
 
Do you agree with any of that, I'm curious. I see no problem with vehemently opposing black politicians who advocate positions that would hurt black people, and I'd disagree that they vilify them anymore than any special interest group does its opponents.

My problem with the NAACP is that they seem to think advancing black people is entirely based on interracial issues; and by interracial I don't mean the good Lexington Steel type, but instead in terms of focusing too much on what white people are doing, saying. I would much rather see an NAACP focused on education, addressing black on black violence, AIDS/HIV, single parenthood, and other issues instead of just focusing on what the white man has done to fuck us over. That's not to say I think the NAACP should not be involved in civil justice matters btw, just that we need to look within our community as well as outside of it.

I actually agree with you there. The establishment there is mostly about furthering their own interests rather than anyone else's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom