I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that I was right. Politeness is far too much to hope for, but even a snarky, reluctant, grumbled “You were right” through gritted teeth would be something.
You were the only one that brought up “black candidates”. No one in the thread was talking about black candidates, and you brought it up for some reason. I assume you were misreading/misunderstanding something or just had a brain fart.
nm
So, you, and Jeremy Peters at the New York Times, equate “white” to Republican to church-burning and shooting young black men on the streets.
And if Democrats say they are against church-burning and shooting young black men on the streets, you call them anti-white. That’s an odd definition of white.
But the Democrats are the real racists, right?
That argument is like saying black voters shouldn’t be offended by Willie Horton-style ads since black people don’t support rape and murder.
Using people who look like you as a bogeyman makes people feel a little aggrieved. And as I pointed out before, as whites decline as a percentage of the population, they begin to take on the characteristics of a minority. In the past, white voters could be expected to see such ads and appreciate the nuance. “Oh, they are talking about the BAD white people, not about me.” And liberal whites still see the ads in that light. The average white working class person doesn’t see it that way. It looks like, “They are stoking fears of whitey to stimulate the minority vote.”
Didn’t you proclaim a few years ago you were utterly confident and it was clear that within three years Libya would be a “functioning, stable, pro-western democracy”?
There’s a saying that people who spend their time staring into crystal balls wind up with faces filled with glass.
Referring to the tragedy in Ferguson or Sanford, Florida is not the same as claiming white people are the enemy.
By such a standard, anyone critical of ISIS is an anti-Muslim bigot.
Could you provide some cites please.
Referring? No, they said if you voted for Republicans there would be more of that. More white people shooting black people.
So, with 75% of the population, you now feel that you are a persecuted minority, and that anyone who denounces a killer acroess color lines is denouncing you.
That kind of attitude was ugly as sin in black defenders of OJ Simpson; it’s even uglier on you.
It sounds like you are using the phrase, “white working class person,” to mean not a white, working-class person, but some kind of racist.
There’s nothing racist in seeing those ads as race-baiting. My argument that liberal whites see it otherwise was based on their typical need to rationalize the issue away. Some things are pretty simple. This is a good example. If the message was meant to be more nuanced, the ads wouldn’t have been hidden from white voters.
I nearly pissed myself laughing at this post.
That said, where does this hostility towards “liberal whites” come from and how were these ads “hidden” from “white voters”?
Are “liberal whites” some sort of “race traitors”?
Since you had chosen to channel the answers of other posters, I wondered what other facts you could provide about astorian’s positions. Does astorian like chocolate ice cream? I like chocolate ice cream. Maybe he and I have something in common to base our future friendship on?
I agree with your 2nd, clarified/corrected, statement. Unfortunately, your 1st attempt was too broad and confusing, which is why I asked for a clarification. Some people feel challenged when asked to clarify their statements or positions. I’m not responsible for what you meant to write. I can only respond to what you actually wrote.
I have no problem being polite to polite people. I do not have a problem being snarky to snarky people, either.
Conservatives don’t believe in race traitors. We leave that to the liberal whites, who seem pretty free to break out the racial slurs when dealing with conservative minorities.
The ads were hidden from white voters by targeting them at urban radio. They did a similar thing with some race-baiting ads targeted at Latinos on Spanish-language TV and radio.
It was a desperate ploy to goose turnout, and since the NY Times was nice enough to tell us all about it, and in a rare moment of clarity, actually explain to us that the messages were racially charged(since some liberals don’t get it, but see it in every ad Republicans run) it might have backfired in a big way.
No idea what you’re going on about. astorian was talking about Democratic candidates (because that’s what he said – “Democratic candidates”) and you, for some reason, brought up “black candidates”, which no one had mentioned.
The only facts I can provide about astorian’s positions are the ones he outright states in his post – like when he says “Democratic candidates”, he means “Democratic candidates”, and not “black candidates”.
No one believes in “race traitors” except white supremacists (and I don’t think you want to get into whether most white supremacists lean conservative or liberal).
Targeting ads at certain demographics by using certain media outlets is not hiding them from anyone.
The problem was not excessive negative advertising, or “race-baiting”, for the Democrats, it was the failure to pair negative advertising (which is necessary for any successful political campaign) with a unifying message and a defense of Democratic accomplishments.
astorian made a statement that he was later able to clarify. Problem solved. For some personal reason, you vetted his original, unclarified, statement. I wondered what other positions astorian might hold that you would be willing to vouch for? Ginger or Maryanne? Best James Bond?
But you haven’t answered my question. It’s not a tough one – where did the “black candidates” stuff come from?
Personal? I suppose “this is a discussion on a forum I like that I think I could contribute to” could be a personal reason.
Only the ones that he’s outright stated already.
You should ask Clarence Thomas about that sometime.
African-Americans and Latinos watch a lot of shows that are liked by all demographics. They could have reached a lot of those voters by advertising on those stations and during those shows. Except they kinda didn’t want whites to even see or hear these ads. As the NY Times put it, “out of sight of white voters”.
And one of the problems Democrats have is that for the last couple of cycles they’ve chosen a strategy of base turnout through alarmist messaging to various groups, as opposed to a broad message that can appeal to everyone. Works well enough in Presidential elections where a minority is at the top of the ticket, not so well when you’re trying to defend a bunch of old white guys wanting to keep their Senate seats.