Conquer Club

96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

I remember when people were mocking the Russian presidential election when Putin won 99% of the vote in Chechnya, and people claimed this demonstrated clear corruption in the political. 96% is 3% off from that comical statistic that made Russia a punchline for a week.

Hillary Clinton gets it. That's why she shamelessly panders to the black vote. She knows kissing ass works when nearly the entire demographic is uninformed or one issue voters.

With what Trump has been saying lately....enough said

Countries like Pakistan and the US are brilliant. It's like a real life Truman Show, preserving a snapshot of the 19th century for anthropologists to document and analyze at their leisure.

william18 wrote:96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

I don't think so either. Yet 93 percent of Republicans voted for Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, and Bush in 2004.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us ... ups-voted/

It's not a black thing; it's the same old partisan bullshit that keeps the party overlords strong. Black people just happen to overwhelmingly stay on the blue team.
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/

/ wrote:

william18 wrote:96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

I don't think so either. Yet 93 percent of Republicans voted for Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, and Bush in 2004.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us ... ups-voted/

93% of Republicans voted Republican. Republicans are already a group of people categorized by their political beliefs. The black community isn't.

/ wrote:It's not a black thing; it's the same old partisan bullshit that keeps the party overlords strong. Black people just happen to overwhelmingly stay on the blue team.
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/

I think the democratic party pulled off an impressive feat in how they managed to monopolize the black vote. I doubt any of the blacks are voting because they remember what Roosevelt, Trumen, and Johnson did. They just do it "cause their parents always did".

william18 wrote:I doubt any of the blacks are voting because they remember what Roosevelt, Trumen, and Johnson did.

Why would anyone vote for a candidate just because someone who ran for that party 50-60 years ago did a good job?

mrswdk wrote:

william18 wrote:I doubt any of the blacks are voting because they remember what Roosevelt, Trumen, and Johnson did.

Why would anyone vote for a candidate just because someone who ran for that party 50-60 years ago did a good job?

Because of a phenomenon called party identification.

william18 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

william18 wrote:I doubt any of the blacks are voting because they remember what Roosevelt, Trumen, and Johnson did.

Why would anyone vote for a candidate just because someone who ran for that party 50-60 years ago did a good job?

Because of a phenomenon called party identification.

If people were voting based upon the achievements of long dead presidents then black people would surely be voting Republican, given that (as has been mentioned on this forum before) it was Abe Lincoln and the Republicans who freed the slaves.

mrswdk wrote:

william18 wrote:I doubt any of the blacks are voting because they remember what Roosevelt, Trumen, and Johnson did.

Why would anyone vote for a candidate just because someone who ran for that party 50-60 years ago did a good job?

Why do most people still follow the religion their grandparents did? Politics, like religion, is about belonging to a tribe and be able to say "WE are great and THEY are horrible." It has nothing to do with the thin veneer of rationality that we carry on the surface of our minds, and everything to do with our deep-seated instinctive need to love US and hate THEM.

inb4 Duk shit-talking about how stupid poor people are

mrswdk wrote:inb4 Duk shit-talking about how stupid poor people are

Nah, the rich are just as stupid, just in different ways.

Basically the only things we really do with our rational minds is engage in masturbatory philosophical arguments.

All the core decisions -- where to work, who to marry, what to eat, who to vote for -- are made at the dumb animal instinct level.

Actually, the rich seem to be pretty intelligent since they give money (which is probably worth more than votes) to any and all candidates to hedge bets.

william18 wrote:96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

I remember when people were mocking the Russian presidential election when Putin won 99% of the vote in Chechnya, and people claimed this demonstrated clear corruption in the political. 96% is 3% off from that comical statistic that made Russia a punchline for a week.

Hillary Clinton gets it. That's why she shamelessly panders to the black vote. She knows kissing ass works when nearly the entire demographic is uninformed or one issue voters.

What percentage of Irish Americans voted for John F. Kennedy?

Hell, I can give anecdotal evidence... Every single person in my extended family who could vote, voted for Michael Dukakis. And all those Greek family members are registered Republican (albeit not socially conservative). Shit, my grandfather voted only for Democrats after Bush defeated Dukakis only because the Republicans beat a Greek-American.

Hell X2, I bet you could look at Trump supporters and use identity-politics. "Hey, here's a candidate that finally cares about poor and middle class white men!"

@Duk And most of those people will be forever dissatisfied because their lack of self-discipline will prevent them from achieving their long-term satisfaction.

thegreekdog wrote:Actually, the rich seem to be pretty intelligent since they give money (which is probably worth more than votes) to any and all candidates to hedge bets.

Depends if they actually get what they pay for.

For example, opensecrets.org says that Renaissance Technologies gave $21.3 million to American political parties in 2015-16 alone. What did they get in return for that investment? Was it worth more than $21.3 million?

A good example of some rich guys who made horrible political investments would be the Wilks Brothers, who gave $15 million to Ted Cruz during his abortive campaign for the Republican nomination (lawl @ them). Could've bought a mega yacht, instead they backed a sucker.

mrswdk wrote:inb4 Duk shit-talking about how stupid poor people are

inb4 mrs takes another poorly thought out run @ duk.

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Actually, the rich seem to be pretty intelligent since they give money (which is probably worth more than votes) to any and all candidates to hedge bets.

Depends if they actually get what they pay for.

For example, opensecrets.org says that Renaissance Technologies gave $21.3 million to American political parties in 2015-16 alone. What did they get in return for that investment? Was it worth more than $21.3 million?

A good example of some rich guys who made horrible political investments would be the Wilks Brothers, who gave $15 million to Ted Cruz during his abortive campaign for the Republican nomination (lawl @ them). Could've bought a mega yacht, instead they backed a sucker.

How much money to the Wilks Brothers have? I mean, they sold a 70% interest in an entity for $3.5 billion so let's assume they have that much cash. $15 million is 0.4% of $3.5 billion.

That's like someone making $50,000 giving $200 to Bernie Sanders.

It is also likely relevant that Ted Cruz is still a US senator.

But hey! you can use whatever narrative you want to undermine the rich. Get on with your bad self!

I'm not attempting to undermine 'the rich'. 'The rich' and 'the poor' are not generalizations I really care for. I was just challenging your assertion that 'the rich seem intelligent because they make donations to politicians'.

I highly doubt the Wilks Brothers are ever going to see more than $15 million of return on their investment in Ted Cruz's failed run for nomination. Unless they derive some sort of amusement from throwing money up the wall trying to buy influence with politicians (in the same way some gamblers enjoy gambling, even if they lose overall) then their investment was a bad one, and therefore not a smart one.

mrswdk wrote:I'm not attempting to undermine 'the rich'. 'The rich' and 'the poor' are not generalizations I really care for. I was just challenging your assertion that 'the rich seem intelligent because they make donations to politicians'.

I highly doubt the Wilks Brothers are ever going to see more than $15 million of return on their investment in Ted Cruz's failed run for nomination. Unless they derive some sort of amusement from throwing money up the wall trying to buy influence with politicians (in the same way some gamblers enjoy gambling, even if they lose overall) then their investment was a bad one, and therefore not a smart one.

I respectfully disagree. The Wilks Brothers have an influential politician in their collective pockets especially given that they spent the equivalent of $200 (to a person making $50,000).

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

mrswdk wrote:What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

Donating to Ted Cruz during that time not only garners favor from Cruz himself, but everyone in the Never Trump movement, which is a large portion of establishment republicans.

Edit: Realized they donated in mid 2015. They probably sensed the anti-establishment sentiment, and backed Cruz. In hindsight, if it wasn't for Trump, Cruz would be the nominee.

william18 wrote:Donating to Ted Cruz during that time not only garners favor from Cruz himself, but everyone in the Never Trump movement, which is a large portion of establishment republicans.

Never Trump people (the establishment) hate Cruz more than they did Trump. They are currently begging any stray cat they can find hoping that one of them will run as a third party.

tzor wrote:

william18 wrote:Donating to Ted Cruz during that time not only garners favor from Cruz himself, but everyone in the Never Trump movement, which is a large portion of establishment republicans.

Never Trump people (the establishment) hate Cruz more than they did Trump. They are currently begging any stray cat they can find hoping that one of them will run as a third party.

They might have hated Cruz more than hate Trump, but Trump is also an embarrassment to the party, so it's not clear they wanted Trump to be the nominee any more than they wanted Cruz to be. Nevertheless many establishment Republicans are starting to fall in line behind Trump, just as they would have fallen in line behind Cruz.

99.1% of camo wearing bigots will vote for Drumpf

tzor wrote:

william18 wrote:Donating to Ted Cruz during that time not only garners favor from Cruz himself, but everyone in the Never Trump movement, which is a large portion of establishment republicans.

Never Trump people (the establishment) hate Cruz more than they did Trump. They are currently begging any stray cat they can find hoping that one of them will run as a third party.

In the beginning. But establishment members such and Mitt Romney and his goons were working in favor of Cruz during Utah primary and afterward.

notyou2 wrote:99.1% of camo wearing

You sound rather salty.

mrswdk wrote:What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.