Race relations

[stevenash]

Big Girl says she speaks the truth- I guess disavowing the national debt is a latest version of the truth.

[NorthoftheBorder]

Big Girl says she speaks the truth- I guess disavowing the national debt is a latest version of the truth.

Steve, some people who you and I disagree with on this board can be taken seriously and others can't!!  I am confident you can figure it out from there!!!

[stevenash]

I think that, from now  on, when I don't have a credible response to a comment, I am going to simply resort to one or all of the following standard responses and tell myself that I won that particular exchange

 

1.  Boom, roasted

2.  I am smarter than you( oft times poorly veiled within another condescending comment)

3.. You are a racist

[Big girl]

Hell you are.

[stevenash]

Very logical and well conceived  response.

[Big girl]

Thanks :)

[NorthoftheBorder]

Too the point of the name of this topic, I work with a gentleman who happened to be born here in the USA wih African ethnicity.  He didn't choose to be born with that ethnicity just as I didn't choose to be born caucasian with numerous European ethnicities.  He is well educated and brings valuable skills and a very good work ethic to our organization.  He doesn't operate in a fashion where his ethnicity is the first and foremost part of his being.  Just seems to want to be a regular human being!  What a novel idea.  He is engaging, thoughtful and easy to get along with.  I would think that there are some in his own communtiy that see him in a negative light, but you wouldn't know it as he doesn't dwell or make an issue of the political and racial issues that are all around us on the local/state/national level.  Just thought I would share this with you guys!!!

[stevenash]

Very good point.  My immediate supervisor of the last couple of years, recently was promoted and I sure hated to see him go.  But I stay in contact with him on a weekly basis.  He is an African American as well.  He never accused me of bigotry, hatred, or racism.

[Big girl]

Good for him

[Big girl]

Apparently he doesn't visit this forum.

[stevenash]

No he doesnt.  But he also is smart enough not to evaluate someone on some words written on a message board.

[PAMFAM10]

I'm still waiting on a answer to my last post.

[stevenash]

Ok- I'll try.  My guess is that the country is comprised of X number of low info voters.   I  would further guess that low info voters do not understand the issues facing this country very well and hence, are not highly motivated to go to the polls at election time.  Some will and some won't.  However, when they hear someone promising to take something away from someone else and giving it to them, it encourages them to show up at the polls in much larger numbers as they feel it increases the likelihood that they will be a recipient of what the candidate is promising them.  The class envy approach works very well when presented to low info voters because it is something they can grasp/understand.  So, I would suggest to you that a lot more of them voted in the last couple of elections than they had in the past.

[NorthoftheBorder]

In all seriousness if Obama was elected because of low informed voter's then who was bush elected by. Or did voters make a switch from informed votes to low inform voters in the span of 4 years. and if a Republican take the white house in 2 years will the same voters be considered low inform voters. Or is Low inform a code world for people who don't think like me. SERIOUS QUESTION.

Low information voters are those who vote for candidates on things other than substantive issues such as looks, gender, ethnicity etc.... They take at face value what the candidates and media tell them and they do not look at the voting record or office achievement, or where someone stands on important issues.  They do reside in both parties as well as those who call themselves independents.  There is a greater % of them in the younger age bracket which could account for your question about the 4 year span between Bush's 2004 victory and Obama's 2008 victory.  Older voters tend to be more conservative and grew up in a era where a persons actions matter more than there words (they are dying off).  Couple that with the fact that Obama probably had the highest % of younger voters since Kennedy (and the historic nature of his win) and you have a plausible explanation. 

[smitty]

I'm still waiting on a answer to my last post.

I started a new topic just for you titled "Low Information Voter."  Watch the videos.  There are more out there if you wish.

[TxHoops]

Ok- I'll try. My guess is that the country is comprised of X number of low info voters. I would further guess that low info voters do not understand the issues facing this country very well and hence, are not highly motivated to go to the polls at election time. Some will and some won't. However, when they hear someone promising to take something away from someone else and giving it to them, it encourages them to show up at the polls in much larger numbers as they feel it increases the likelihood that they will be a recipient of what the candidate is promising them. The class envy approach works very well when presented to low info voters because it is something they can grasp/understand. So, I would suggest to you that a lot more of them voted in the last couple of elections than they had in the past.

I would argue there were plenty of low info voters who helped elect W. I saw plenty of footage of these types (I won't call them hillbillies or rednecks for fear of being condescending) talking about how great it was to have a "regular guy" or someone they could really relate to as President. Guns, anti-gay marriage, etc. were issues of the utmost importance to them. So in that respect, I guess he got the job done which they sent him to do...

[stevenash]

If you are correct, are you saying that the number of low info voters has declined since the time that Mr. Bush was elected?  Does the election of Mr. Obama mean that the electorate, as a whole, is somehow more enlightened/sophisticated than it was when Mr. Bush was elected?  I suppose nobody knows for sure, but I am going to stick with my theory that the promise of "free stuff" is a more powerful vote getter than most anything else ( also emphasizing the lack of sophistication of those who willingly accept the word/thought "free" as being true). 

 

Disclaimer:  The aforementioned words in this post were not intended to convey hatred toward anyone or any race.

[TxHoops]

No and no. The public education system in this country is just as bad today as it was 10 and 14 years ago.

By the way, as for your disclaimer and a large portion of your other posts on this board, someone is going to start thinking "thou doth protest too much." I know you get fixated on something and have trouble moving past it (as many do), but I'm just saying. You mention race more than anyone of any color on this board (and no, I will not go back and provide examples 😉).

(Disclaimer: I personally don't believe you are a racist based on what I know about you independent of this board. Although I don't know you well enough to "know your heart," I would almost be willing to say I "know" you are not racist. Enough to say I would bet a significant amount of money on it if it were something that could be empirically proven. Just a friendly word of counsel because I don't want you to be falsely labeled. You've made your point; I would move on.)

[stevenash]

Sometimes people choose to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.  I often mention race because I get very tired of the suggestion/inference that criticism of the President is due to race rather than policy.  It has become the default excuse/accusation of a number of people on this board and it troubles me greatly.  And, by the way, that default accusation is most often the product of someone who is a low info voter from my perspective. I also am offended by the tactic where one simply "lobs" the accusation at you ( without much of a reason) and, for some reason, it is up to the "accused" to "prove" that he or she is not a racist.  I find your last post diametrically opposed to what a recent post suggested via "  volume tells one a lot"

[TxHoops]

Sometimes people choose to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. I often mention race because I get very tired of the suggestion/inference that criticism of the President is due to race rather than policy. It has become the default excuse/accusation of a number of people on this board and it troubles me greatly. And, by the way, that default accusation is most often the product of someone who is a low info voter from my perspective. I also am offended by the tactic where one simply "lobs" the accusation at you ( without much of a reason) and, for some reason, it is up to the "accused" to "prove" that he or she is not a racist. I find your last post diametrically opposed to what a recent post suggested via " volume tells one a lot"

I never meant to infer that your "hostility" towards the president was race based. And I am fairly sure I didn't say it directly.

[stevenash]

So the "volumes says a lot" had nothing to do with it?  Hmmmm 

[TxHoops]

No it didn't. If you read what I just wrote, you will see I said "hostility." Are you implying that hostility can only be based on race? I doubt you believe that. Stop while I am saying I don't believe you are racist (which I have now at least 3 times.). Otherwise, someone might infer you have a guilty conscience.

[NorthoftheBorder]

I never meant to infer that your "hostility" towards the president was race based. And I am fairly sure I didn't say it directly.

I think for many of us who disagree with the "far" left agenda, we have always disagreed and do not believe that it is best for humanity much less the USA.  We are weary of being labeled racist over the last 6 years when over the previous period of our life when we disagreed with liberal leaning administrations or liberal members of congress we may have been labeled numerous things but racist wasn't one of them.  There is not any difference between before and now except the ethnicity of the current President.  And that is exactly my point.  The race card has allowed the far left (radical) liberal agenda to advance like never before under the cover of branding non African Americans who speak out against the current Admins policies as racist and the few African Americans who do are marginalized as being sell outs or worse!!  I can say for myself and I think for many others on this board who are conservative  (based on reading their posts) that I (and they) hold no personal animosity or wish ill will against anyone I disagree with about public policy or governance of this country.  I do strongly disagree with the positions of our left leaning brethren who post on this board.  I obviously enjoy the debate and foolheartedly think that my posts on here will change the beliefs and thoughts of some on the left.  It is obvious that I haven't. 

[77]

Very well said!

[Big girl]

No it didn't. If you read what I just wrote, you will see I said "hostility." Are you implying that hostility can only be based on race? I doubt you believe that. Stop while I am saying I don't believe you are racist (which I have now at least 3 times.). Otherwise, someone might infer you have a guilty conscience.

roflmbo