Carl the Llama Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 It is pretty brilliant watching Fox News implode last night. Long-ass post. Not being clued up on US politics I was like "what things Bill? Be more specific! Is Obama giving flatscreens and ice cream to minorities? Is he giving the head o state free of charge to all women?" Watching it over again and substituting "things"/"stuff" for "equal rights" I see he was being more backwards than I gave him credit for.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 You see, this is why we can't have nice things. I know I shouldn't feed the Fox News trolls. But this is a guy, Bill O'Reilly, who gets paid millions of dollars to offer political and social commentary to millions of people--ostensibly with "no spin"--and this is the genius analysis he comes up with. Bill O'Reilly is a popular person! A lot of Americans actually listen to him often and think, "Hmm, he's got a good point there!" First, he starts with aping Mitt Romney's absurd and offensive "47 percent" line (only he adds 3 percent to it). And then, it only gets better: "Give them things?" If by "things," you mean elected officials that don't express disdain for government, then yes! "An establishment candidate like Mitt Romney?" What is so establishment about Mitt Romney? He's never been in Washington! Clearly, by "establishment," O'Reilly means, "white." "The white establishment is now a minority." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. If every white voter voted for Romney, and every non-white voter voted for Obama, Romney would win in THE BIGGEST LANDSLIDE POPULAR VOTE EVER. "You're gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama." Romney suggested that undocumented immigrants should, and I quote, "self-deport!" He also called Arizona's strict (but contested) new immigration laws, which gave law enforcement officers free reign to stop and harass anybody that looked Mexican, a "model" that the nation should follow. No s__t they voted for Obama! Yeah, they want "stuff"--they want themselves and other people that look and talk like them to be treated like human beings! "Overwhelming black vote for President Obama?" Of course! And not just because Obama has pretty much inspired and encouraged black voters an important part of the presidential election process for the first time ever, but also because of the clear anti-minority voter suppression efforts led by the GOP, or all the racism that comes from their side... "Women will probably break President Obama's way?" News flash, Bill: Women like to be able to make decisions about their own health! Most women would like the right to use contraception! Most women would like to be able to have an abortion if they are raped and get pregnant because of rape! Women would not like to have to pay more for health insurance just because they're women! Women want to get the same pay that men get for doing the same job! This isn't hard to understand. American women aren't asking for the sun, the moon, and the stars. Rather, they're asking for, y'know, basic rights. Do you think they're going to break for the candidate and party that has campaigned against all of these "things?" "People feel that they are entitled to 'things?'" Yes, if by "things," you mean civil rights... The white establishment is now the minority? Dude, when the new Congress is inaugurated in January, count all of the white people, then count all of the non-white people, and tell me who's the majority (hint: it'll be the white people, by a massive margin). And here's the most effed up part about it: people that like and believe what this clown is saying really feel that they are the victims here! I'm a white male that lives in America, and let me tell you from personal experience: being a white male in America is awesome. Wherever I go, I get great service. I never have to show ID at the polls on election day. Hell, I never have to show ID anywhere! Police officers leave me alone! When I go into a store, shopkeepers never treat me like I'm going to steal anything--and sometimes, they even give me good deals! When I wear a suit, people trust me! If I spend money I don't have to go get drunk, I'm not considered an alcoholic--I'm just a fun guy that likes a good party! If I haven't worked hard enough to make something of my life, I'm not considered lazy and a moocher--I'm just "growing up" and "finding myself!" White people feel the economy is stacked against them? Really? Try being black, and see how much you'll like the economy that way! That crap is nothing but racist dog-whistles. Got to be one of my favourite posts ever. Fantastic stuff.
Jordan Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 Not being clued up on US politics I was like "what things Bill? Be more specific! Is Obama giving flatscreens and ice cream to minorities? Is he giving the head o state free of charge to all women?" Watching it over again and substituting "things"/"stuff" for "equal rights" I see he was being more backwards than I gave him credit for. You can't say "I don't like black people; they're lazy and they don't vote Republican" on TV and get away with it, but there are other ways to say it... I will also add that O'Reilly appears to be a terrible student of history. He alleged Obama would never stand a chance against an "establishment" candidate 20 years ago... In 1992, the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, was the ultimate establishment candidate. America disliked their establishment so much that not only did they elect the governor of Arkansas (Clinton) to replace Bush, but almost 20 million Americans voted for a businessman with no prior political experience (Ross Perot).
Carl the Llama Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 You can't say "I don't like black people; they're lazy and they don't vote Republican" on TV and get away with it, but there are other ways to say it... I will also add that O'Reilly appears to be a terrible student of history. He alleged Obama would never stand a chance against an "establishment" candidate 20 years ago... In 1992, the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, was the ultimate establishment candidate. America disliked their establishment so much that not only did they elect the governor of Arkansas (Clinton) to replace Bush, but almost 20 million Americans voted for a businessman with no prior political experience (Ross Perot). But Bill can't let a minor thing like 'facts' get in the way of his bigoted diatribes - I've spent many an evening staring in astonishment at youtube clips of Bill being an ignorant ass in the face of reasoned discussion.
Jordan Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 But Bill can't let a minor thing like 'facts' get in the way of his bigoted diatribes - I've spent many an evening staring in astonishment at youtube clips of Bill being an ignorant ass in the face of reasoned discussion. Nothing can ever top his philosophical gambit on science: "Tide goes in, tide goes out ... you can't explain that."
sphericalfox Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 Nothing can ever top his philosophical gambit on science: "Tide goes in, tide goes out ... you can't explain that." He's a despicable creature, I'm going to enjoy Fox's wallowing for the next 4 years.
21st Century Fox Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 This made me laugh Patton Oswalt â€@pattonoswalt "Just let me sing 'America the Beautiful' again. I can fix this!" -- Meat Loaf, with 9 ineffective trank darts in his neck
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 A surprising margin but not a surprising result. The Republicans may not win again until they start to genuinely reform. Too many people have now discovered they ave the power through their vote, and the votes of women and minority groups have become more important that the right wing. Their best hope i nfour year is Condi Rice, but I doubt they are disciplined enough to select her. Exactly what I thought yesterday, Condi wins an election for the Republicans, can you imagine the women and black vote that would go with it? It's an absolute must for 2016.
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 Now we have a Tory government that in many areas is more right-wing than Thatcher ever was. lol How on earth did you manage to write that whilst clicking post whilst still thinking it was serious?
MC Prussian Posted 7 November 2012 Posted 7 November 2012 I still think Stephen Colbert should run. But only against Jon Stewart.
Jordan Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 No! Stewart and Colbert are far too valuable to our country in their current roles.
MC Prussian Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 @Jordan: What are the chances of the Green Party and the Libertarians getting any more coverage and/or influence in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the near future? For a functioning and healthy democracy, I'd love to see both a more left-wing as well as a somewhat conservative party nestled in between the Democrats and the GOP do well.
purpleronnie Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I've always thought of America as more right wing than the UK, but there seems to be definate change over the last few years Now the US have re-elected a black president, where in the UK the chance of a black prime minister still seems a long way off, you hear news that in 2 states they have legalised the sale and posession of marijuana (although it is being fought)..its still criminalized here. This president who has revolutioned health care, who is pro gay marriage and pro choice. They have a president who's aim is to bring people together who is much more open to immigration that the republican's, whenever immigration is mentioned in the UK its almost always negatively despite having compared to many countires a smaller percentage of immigrants and some of the strictest immigration laws in europe. We have seen recently in the UK someone being jailed for protesting, someone jailed for stealing a bottle of water. Makes you wonder if the UK is becoming more and more conservative in nature, I used to take the piss out of my American friends about their conservative views....I'm not sure I can do that anymore. Of course I speak in general terms, you head to the midwest or southern states and its deeply conservative but the changes that are happening in America means their views are shown to be outdated and in the minority....I hope its the same in the UK.
breadandcheese Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 A question for Jordan: The media over here seems to be making a big deal about the percentage of Hispanic and Black people who voted for Obama, pointing to this as one of the key reasons for his re-election. They're making a big play about how the Republican party needs to reinvent itself to appeal to these communities. So my question is: Is the analysis over here correct, or is it more to do with lower socio-economic groups tending to vote Democrat? (I'm assuming that hispanic and black communities in the States tend to be toward the lower end of socio-economic groups, so wondering if voting patterns are is more to do with economic divides than racial divides?)
purpleronnie Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I'm not jordan () but from what I've read there are plenty of hispanic and black people who are republican in nature but due to the republican hard line on immigration they cant bring themselves to vote for them anymore. It was only in 2004 Bush got almost 1/2 of all hispanic votes.
breadandcheese Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I'm not jordan ( ) but from what I've read there are plenty of hispanic and black people who are republican in nature but due to the republican hard line on immigration they cant bring themselves to vote for them anymore. It was only in 2004 Bush got almost 1/2 of all hispanic votes. That's interesting. Didn't know that about the 2004 election. I asked the question as I wanted to better understand the data on the news, stripping out any irrelevant factors. Judging by 2004 election and the hispanic vote evaporating over the last 8 years, then it would appear it is nothing to do with socio-economic status and much more to do with voting along racial lines, based on party appeal.
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I'm not jordan () but from what I've read there are plenty of hispanic and black people who are republican in nature but due to the republican hard line on immigration they cant bring themselves to vote for them anymore. It was only in 2004 Bush got almost 1/2 of all hispanic votes. Black people seem to like the idea of voting for a Black man, sky news had the Black vote going from 65-35 democrat under Kerry to 96-4 under Obama. And some folk think the crackers are bad for judging people on race in the US
Jordan Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 OK, now that the dust has settled, and that I've spiked the football, I'll give you a brief post-mortem and answer a few questions. The GOP's polling and poll analysis gave them real hope that they would win on Tuesday. Hell, they even spent so much time "unskewering" the polls to believe they would cruise to a landslide victory! The quants said the whole time that Obama maintained a steady lead and confirmed that the lead had solidified right before the election. The quants were right (often correct with their predictions in every state), of course, and the GOP was left with egg on their face. Nate Silver is the man. Voters were more pleased with Obama's first term than the GOP assumed. They saw the current economic situation as more a product of the economic collapse under Bush's watch and its problems requiring more patience to correct than the GOP assumed. And the Obama campaign were successful in painting Romney as a real-life Mr. Burns. While Obama's popular vote lead wasn't as big as it was in 2008, this election was a major victory for legacy Democratic grand initiatives that have continued with what I might call "Obamaism": a belief that government has a major role in promoting private sector growth, refereeing in the financial sector, and taking direct action when the nation faces a major emergency. Supply-side economics took a blow to the chin on Tuesday night. I must also say that the Obama campaign once again did a fantastic job getting out the vote. The GOP greatly misunderstood this year's electorate, believing there was no way Dems would turn out the way they did in 2008. Boy, were they wrong. When the Sheldon Adelsons of the world threw hundreds of millions of dollars around to take Obama down, rank-and-file Democrats reached into their pockets and donated what they could. Obama and the Democrats were doubted by the right time and time again, yet those doubts only made OFA/Dem campaigns knock on more doors and make more phone calls. The Dems actually expanded their Senate majority despite most pundits predicting this August that they would lose their majority altogether. The Dems made modest gains in the House, but more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates than Republicans--the Demswould have perhaps made a serious challenge for the majority if it weren't for the re-districting done by GOP-controlled state legislatures (they have the majority in most states) last year. OK, maybe that wasn't so brief. Anyway... @Jordan: What are the chances of the Green Party and the Libertarians getting any more coverage and/or influence in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the near future? For a functioning and healthy democracy, I'd love to see both a more left-wing as well as a somewhat conservative party nestled in between the Democrats and the GOP do well. I don't see much, if any, chance for the Greens to increase their influence in American politics, and certainly not in Congress... well, unless they convince and nominate someone like George Clooney to run for a House seat. There is, however, one advocate for those causes already in the Senate: Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is one of the most popular Senators among his constituents in the country, and who--despite not being a well-known Senator--nevertheless is looked upon by the public more favorably than nearly all of his peers. Sanders is Perhaps this says as much about Vermont as it does Sanders, but he just cruised to re-election with 71% of the vote against token opposition on Tuesday. Sanders is a socialist--yes, a real socialist and not a "socialist" like the far-right calls President Obama. He's an outspoken, but not outlandish, advocate of the progressive and green agendas. One of Sanders' most famous moments in the Senate was an 8.5-hour-long speech against the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 (the "Fili-Bernie"). Sanders caucuses with the Democrats and sits on several committees (particularly environmental committes, and is the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy). As for libertarians, I expect an increase in libertarian influence in politics. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), son of longtime-but-imminently-retiring Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), is an unabashed libertarian. A few current Congressmen--particularly those carried into power in the 2010 Tea Party wave--are influenced greatly by libertarian principles. Ron Paul has led a small yet vocal movement of libertarians whose influence is perhaps disproportionately larger than their numbers. (I joke that they're just 10 guys, each with 10,000 sock puppets) Ron Paul has run a few campaigns for the GOP Presidential nomination that, while never having a snowball's chance in hell to win, nevertheless greatly improved his the reach of his message. This year's campaign threatened to cause a schism in the GOP, and Paul supporters--believing they were being deliberately silenced by the party establishment--almost staged a revolt at the Republican National Convention. It remains to be seen where Ron Paul--and by extension, a large portion of the libertarian movement that remains fiercely loyal to him--goes from here. They could remain an unofficial faction within the GOP (sometimes there are benefits, particularly with campaign funding and support, to run candidates as Republicans rather than indies/3rd party), continue their current plan to agitate from within the party, break off to form a splinter movement/party, or align with the Libertarian party. You may have already heard of both of these guys, but if not, you'll probably enjoy reading a bit more about them because they are unique American politicians. A question for Jordan: The media over here seems to be making a big deal about the percentage of Hispanic and Black people who voted for Obama, pointing to this as one of the key reasons for his re-election. They're making a big play about how the Republican party needs to reinvent itself to appeal to these communities. So my question is: Is the analysis over here correct, or is it more to do with lower socio-economic groups tending to vote Democrat? (I'm assuming that hispanic and black communities in the States tend to be toward the lower end of socio-economic groups, so wondering if voting patterns are is more to do with economic divides than racial divides?) The media over here has come to the same analysis, and several GOP insiders (notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)) have worried openly about the future electoral success of the party if it doesn't make any effort to attract other voters besides white men. Yes, part of this has to do with blacks and Latinos being, on average, less well-off than whites. But people of lower socio-economic classes are more likely to vote Democratic among all races except for in some areas of the country where Republicans dominate. I'm not jordan ( ) but from what I've read there are plenty of hispanic and black people who are republican in nature but due to the republican hard line on immigration they cant bring themselves to vote for them anymore. It was only in 2004 Bush got almost 1/2 of all hispanic votes. You're not me but you are certainly right. Immigration wasn't the biggest factor in influencing Hispanic votes, but it was certainly an important one. Black people seem to like the idea of voting for a Black man, sky news had the Black vote going from 65-35 democrat under Kerry to 96-4 under Obama. And some folk think the crackers are bad for judging people on race in the US While it was certainly inspiring for black voters to support President Obama because of how he looks and how wonderful it is that a black guy is leading a country that is still scarred by generations by slavery and institutionalized racism, let's be real here. Yes, a lot of black voters rallied around Obama's phenotype and against the open and subtle racism that exists towards the President. But Black voters, like nearly all voters that are part of Obama's broad coalition of support, voted because of issues that affect both their well-being and the well-being of our nation. How many black voters did you see rallying around Herman Cain earlier this year? On the other hand, lot of white voters hate Obama because he looks black and identifies with black culture. We can joke around about things like "black people love fried chicken" or "white people can't dance," sure. But any serious-meaning analysis of the electorate that instantly assumes black people voted for Obama just because he's black yet white voters preferred Romney because of issues is being racist. A Pew Research poll conducted in July showed that 30 percent of Republicans (including 34 percent of self-described Conservative Republicans) believe that Obama is a Muslim. That's actually twice the percentage of Republicans that believe this compared to the same survey conducted in October 2008! Exactly what I thought yesterday, Condi wins an election for the Republicans, can you imagine the women and black vote that would go with it? It's an absolute must for 2016. I'll counter your and Jon the Hat's hypothetical Condi GOP nomination with Hillary Clinton. Provided Obama's second term isn't a total disaster, I'd bet the farm on Hillary. I'm not saying Condi's a horrible candidate, but she's tied too closely with the GW Bush years. And the attack ads would edit themselves... 2016 will be an interesting year for the GOP, but I would think they'd be better served with fresher faces that promote more innovative ideas. But it's too early to prognosticate on 2016, especially since 2014 is going to be a massive mid-term election. I'd pay close attention to who the GOP nominates and how they fare. The Teabaggers dominated the GOP primary process, helping a lot of hard-line fiscal and social conservatives win nominations (and also forcing Romney to his right when he was seeking the nomination). But that proved to be disastrous for the GOP. 20 Dem Senate seats will be up for grabs compared to 13 GOP seats, so they could take the majority with a good showing. Seeing what happens in 2014, and how the GOP reacts, will provide a lot of insight. And yes, Jon the Hat, 2014 will give us a close look into the collective mind of the GOP to see just how reasonably their plans are for expanding their support and for victory. Who knows? Their base may wonder what the point is of nominating more moderate candidates, since two of them have now lost to Obama--they may decide to go more conservative.
21st Century Fox Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I read a scary prediction that Jeb Bush could be in the running for 2016! So with the hypothetical proposition of a Clinton/Bush showdown, a country that shunned aristocracy may have created it's own.
Jordan Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 I read a scary prediction that Jeb Bush could be in the running for 2016! So with the hypothetical proposition of a Clinton/Bush showdown, a country that shunned aristocracy may have created it's own. He has long been considered a potential candidate. Also, with his experience in Latin American business and politics, and his approval ratings in Florida during his time as governor there, he would add a lot of positives that Romney didn't have, though his surname might hurt him a bit... Actually, The Daily Show's coverage of the 2012 GOP presidential primaries was called "The Race to Jeb Bush 2016" edit: regarding aristocracy, before the Bushes, we had the Kennedys. And I wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea Clinton runs for office one day!
21st Century Fox Posted 8 November 2012 Posted 8 November 2012 Seriously of the 300,000,000 possible choices, another Bush!! I'm not sure what would be worse though actually, another Bush or Ryan taking a run.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.