And you have yet again re-enforced my point.
You're doing a really great job at making my argument for me. It's like I don't even have to put any effort into this...

your point doesn't even touch upon the fact the main reason he won. Is because he put forth a better ad campaign with information that led people to vote for him. It's not just boiled down oh he was black.

So you're going to make that statement and still avoid my original question as to whether you think he would have won if he portrayed himself as white?
Come on, man... stop avoiding the question. If your case is that it was simply a great marketing campaign, you're either acknowledging the fact that he portrayed himself as black to be a good strategy, or you think his skin color had absolutely nothing to do with votes in a predominantly black district.

And if you think it was all about the marketing of ideas, then you also submit that those ideas are more important to those voters than skin color, so if you really think that, then you should be saying YES... they would have voted an obvious white man into office. Since all they care about are his policies he marketed.

So which is it, DJ?
Is it the ideas or the skin?
Why is the "two black men running" thing significant? Why does that matter if you think it's relatively insignificant?

Do you realize now that you're making my argument for me?

It is the ideas that got him in. that's my point. I'm trying to ask you why do you think he got more votes when two black men were running that's the significant part.

If two black people are running their skin color doesn't matter!

Just like you avoiding my question about why you think he won if two black men are running. Duh it's the ideas and the ideas that he lied about like most politicians do to get into office.

Then perhaps you completely misunderstood my original post, which I guess I can chalk up to an honest mistake and assume you agree that, had he been clearly portrayed as white, his skin color would have been irrelevant, seeing as how the voters found his advertised policies preferable.
And the fact that you keep saying "two black people" further solidifies the opposite, because you are seemingly acknowledging that, to that black community, skin color only makes a difference when it's not their own.

On the point of fire-based life:

There actually are microorganisms that can live in extreme conditions like that. Maybe not the sun itself but there are little critters that live inside volcanoes n ****.

Why are you saying that like I speak for the entire black community? The black community isn't a unified entity. They are very separate and divided with differing opinions.

I haven't avoided the question because it's irrelevant. We've already established that ignorant voters will vote based on advertisement versus reality. That's not even in debate here, and I'm pretty sure I even alluded to the fact in my original post when I mentioned that the guy had a good point about people not knowing who they were voting for.

Please, let's stick to the issue at hand here, which you seem to be hellbent on distracting away from.

Another deflection.
And a huge failure to process the word "THAT" black community in my statement, which was there to differentiate between THE ENTIRE black community, and the one we are speaking about in reference to the voters that put a fake black man into office.

We can avoid this sort of thing by reading thoroughly.
Please do so.

What issue am I distracting away from? I have already told you numerous times that he won the election based off of his ideas.

I'm not defending ignorant voters either. so we both agree there. What are you trying to get me to pin down and supposedly admit to that you feel like I haven't answered already when I have numerous times already?

Short memory on you.
Couple pages back:

You have yet to answer this question.
It is, after all, the reason I keep asking it. And I'm asking you because you're black and I'm interested in your perspective about it. So if you wouldn't mind...

You are asking me because I'm black but I'm not from THAT community as you stated earlier and I don't vote for candidates just because they are black. I'm a more informed voter.

I answered that question that you quoted numerous times. You want to see where?

You have an even shorter memory Sir.

Honestly all you have to do is think about it. Two people are running and one wins. Why did he win?

So you're refusing to answer the question because you're not from THAT community, but you're content to speak for THAT community with the statement that they picked the guy based on his campaign, while ignoring the elephant in the room that is the entire controversy of a white guy winning because he made the voters think he was black...

If your only statement is that whoever has better ideas win, I'm really not sure why you first replied with:

"Not necessarily, the whole all it takes to win an election in a black majority is to be black or not white.
In this case specifically, the guy that he was running against was black. So it was "two" black people running for the same position not just a "oh he's black let's vote for him"

If you don't see how you're making the statement that color matters, to the degree that both candidates are not black, then I don't know what to tell you...

You do realize that when you say what you have said, you're laying the groundwork for a voter base only making policy votes when the two candidates are black, don't you? You do realize that's a statement in itself, don't you? Which is why I keep asking you why you think the skin color matters. I know why it matters. I'm trying to get you to arrive at that same conclusion, which you seem unwilling to do, as though the reality of it just completely escapes you.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you're seemingly incapable of understanding this. On the other hand, I'm struggling with the possibility that you're simply unwilling to face the question that's actually being asked here.

If that voter base had not been misled by the photos of black people, would they still have voted for the white candidate based on his marketed policies?

It's a simple yes or no.
And you are simply avoiding answering it.

The posts that I quoted in my previous post point to yes. I don't see why it's so hard for you to see that.

You seem to have this thought cemented in your head that black voters only vote for people that are black especially in that community.

I disagree with that.

That's the short end of it.

Also that thought about black voters only vote for people that are black make no sense if you boil it down to a situation where there are two black people to vote for which is the same as having a situation where there are two white people to vote for. How will those black people choose to vote for? What is the determining factor that they will use to pick which white person to vote for? Skin color doesn't matter as much as you think it does in this specific case.

And all this time, all it took was for you to say yes, you think that those voters would have voted in a white Republican anti-gay, because they thought his advertising campaign was swell. Noted. And thanks.
This part makes absolutely no sense.

The choice between skin color is OBVIOUSLY not present where there is no difference in skin color. The choice between skin color in this situation is a hypothetical one.
However, the fact that it's so controversially "tricky" that this guy got black folks to vote for him based on an allusion that he was black, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. I'm talking about the controversy here, not the actual marketed political issues. The fact that people think it's a game-changer to represent yourself in a different skin, regardless of the issues, is what I'm looking at, and that reflects the general perception that skin color matters more than the marketed position of a candidate.

Regarding the hypothetical situation where, in that town, there would be two white candidates, I can pretty much guarantee that whichever was a Democrat would be the in vote. And don't even DREAM of refuting that one.

In that regard, though, we're both missing the ultimate point here. People vote for their own interests. I'll go out on a limb and make a broad assumption that black folks will probably vote for black candidates because they're the most likely to understand their situation and be sympathetic to it. People vote on their own self interests. Same on the other side of the fence. We can both acknowledge this.
My only gripe is that, as this case shows, they're not even doing that much for themselves. That community would obviously be far better represented if they would have taken the time to learn about the candidate, versus checking the "black" box and just voting on which commercials made them feel better.

That's my own opinion, though. Doesn't have anything to do with yours, and I don't claim it to.

You can guarantee it huh? I don't even know why you think that makes the slightest sense that in the specific community where they ended up voting based on ads rather than if the person was a republican or Democrat that they would all of sudden wisen up and say. Oh let's vote for the Democrat. Hell no they wouldn't They would vote for whoever has the best ad campaign.

Why don't black Republicans get more votes then? This whole statement and train of thought that black people will just end up voting for whoever is black doesn't make sense to me. If a white democrat runs up against a black republican. The black republican isn't going to win. Unless that black republican was running in the Houston area and had a better ad campaign but I'm talking about anywhere else. :banghead:

There were two "black" boxes to choose from. They weren't just voting for a black candidate. As I said in an early post I do agree that voters should educate themselves regardless of the race of a candidate though instead of voting based on commercials/attack ads. I didn't even think attack ads were effective but I'm completely wrong I guess. I thought people just made fun of those ads and end up fact checking to see if what was being said is true but I guess that only applies to myself and other educated voters.

I imagine there is a proportion of people who only go by what they've seen on TV because they are too lazy or disinterested to research the candidates to see which one suits their needs.

yeah I understand that. It is the main reason that poor people in the south end up voting Republican when that whole party hates poor people and has started a war against them.

Dali wants chameleon to say black ppl are dumb so badly lol

Considering he ousted a Democrat who held the position for 24 YEARS, it stands to reason that his campaign wasn't exactly espousing conservative/Republican principles...

The statement I was making is that a person voting solely based on skin color is not likely to be looking into the policies and ideologies of that candidate, which is proven in the news story.

Every time you say "two black boxes"... I die a little on the inside.
Keep it up. You may be rid of me by the weekend.

LoL...
Painting with a pretty large brush, don't you think?
That's like saying all Democrats are lazy, don't want to work and want handouts.

Nope, not at all. There is no reason that poor people, women or gay people should be voting for republicans. Their ideals don't line up at all.

Also republicans say that about Democrats all the time so I don't know why you are laughing at the statement.

He could have also won because after that long people get tired of voting for the incumbent when changes aren't happening like they should be.

But I don't think they'd get tired enough to vote for a white Republican. There's 24 years and a deceptive campaign to support that statement.

Do you know how many white Republicans have ran for the seat though? Those two conditions you state doesn't attest to the fact that others have run and were defeated.

Police: Bread company founder arrested after ramming cop cars | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Looks like this guy was pretty proofed off at the police. He was also arrested before for armed robbery, he must have needed the dough. He was also busted for dealing meth, he must have been pretty baked.

Do you know how many white Republicans ran for the seat?
Since you "know" that all Republicans hate poor people, I guess you're the authority on pretty much all this. So don't ask me. Just refer to your own supreme knowledge.

Feel free to tell me how many times a Republican lost that seat.

it's a question that doesn't need answering because you are just making the assumption that only republicans ran for the position.

Strip club owner buys a house next door to his ex-wife... and installs a giant middle finger statue on his lawn | Mail Online

:D

lol OK mate.

:laughing:

That's awesome!

You know that guy's a loon, but I still want to hang with him. The fact that he owns a strip club has nothing to do with it. I swear.

pic of mother and daughter. yes please

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...26_634x629.jpg


this guy is the best:

Markovitz is a well-known character around Detroit.
He began opening strip clubs on Detroit's infamous Eight Mile in the 1980s. Since then, he's been shot twice (once in the face), had a Mob contract out on his life, sued by exotic dancers and, according to Real Detroit Weekly, once had an ex-girlfriend drive her Pontiac Fiero through the front door of one of his clubs.





reminds me sightly of the one time a few months back where i was at a random dive bar at the jukebox and some drunk guy stumbles in, hands me a $20 to play bruce springsteen then sings obnoxiously loud at the bar for 2 songs before leavin. i ask him 'why bruce' and he tells me his ex wife owns the bar and she hates him. great night

I'll bet that dude knows how to get all the cocaine. All of it. We definitely need to chill.

White Supremacist Lynches Himself after Learning of His Black Ancestry - Newslo

http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/...psda7b3b13.gif

Ewww, what a gross ****wad:

Paul Martin, Florida Deputy, Allegedly Asked Teen Victim, 'Are You Into Girls And Lesbian Sex?'

This is the best

Gay Lady Gaga Fan Sold His Ass For $80 To Help Sales Of "ARTPOP" | NewNowNextNewNowNext


ummm

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9Qjjxbus6E...uneko1_500.jpg

He has to be trolling. that's so cheap.