Election Conspiracies

Blacks, hispanics, asians, etc don't have strong family values . . . ? What are you saying . . . ?

It's interesting to note (although off-topic) that immigrants, or any cultural minority, will bond together within the new larger culture they enter, and this (very understandable) tendency to support each other is what leads to perceptions of racial stereotypes and conspiracy (particularly with jewish 'influence' in certain sectors).

The fact that they want to help each other and therefore employ members of their extended family, when this leads to success in the chosen field, gives rise to resentments from those 'outside' the cultural group (typically less culturally-bonded whites), and can give rise to racist resentment or ideas of jewish-cabal conspiracies.
 
Blacks, hispanics, asians, etc don't have strong family values . . . ? What are you saying . . . ?

I'm saying that these generalisations you made that you seem to have forgotten already:

...it has been shown the aforementioned groups (excluding liberal women) have strong family and moral values and are more likely to be against, for example, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion for example . . . however, they refuse to vote for a platform that supports those values . . . instead they voted against a white candidate . . . and for a candidate of color who does not support their family values . . .

Seem to be wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm saying that these generalisations you made that you seem to have forgotten already:



Seem to be wrong.

Any generalization can have exceptions and change over time and depends on exactly how a question is asked on polling . . . however, what I state has been an established political axiom in this country for some time . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Show me you evidence . . .

I beleive I have shown you as much evidence that your generalisations seem to be wrong as you have shown that they are right :)

However I will provide some 3rd party evidence you are wrong:

Laurie Goodstein, writing in The New York Times, noted another demographic that worked in Obama’s favor: the failure of the so-called “Christian Right” to overcome the demographic shift even with a highly energetic campaign in favor of Romney. In an interview, R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said:

It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.

It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.
Content from External Source
or how to get a more diverse GOP

The second idea is that somehow Republicans need to become the party of mass Hispanic immigration. And that they can attract Hispanic voters with their family values messaging (You know, the same thing they have to ditch because of younger voters.) This is a complete dead end.
Content from External Source
These links show that ther are different aspects of your generalisations that seem to be wrong - in the first one that america, as a whole and including minority groups, agrees with those particular "family values" - anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage. The 2nd one suggests that what "strong family values" Hispanics do have are not those of the GOP.

hope that helps.
 
I beleive I have shown you as much evidence that your generalisations seem to be wrong as you have shown that they are right :)

However I will provide some 3rd party evidence you are wrong:

Laurie Goodstein, writing in The New York Times, noted another demographic that worked in Obama’s favor: the failure of the so-called “Christian Right” to overcome the demographic shift even with a highly energetic campaign in favor of Romney. In an interview, R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said:

It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.

It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.
Content from External Source
or how to get a more diverse GOP

The second idea is that somehow Republicans need to become the party of mass Hispanic immigration. And that they can attract Hispanic voters with their family values messaging (You know, the same thing they have to ditch because of younger voters.) This is a complete dead end.
Content from External Source
These links show that ther are different aspects of your generalisations that seem to be wrong - in the first one that america, as a whole and including minority groups, agrees with those particular "family values" - anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage. The 2nd one suggests that what "strong family values" Hispanics do have are not those of the GOP.

hope that helps.

I will answer this very simply . . . my quote below . . . Yes the entire country is more secular

. . . seems if there is racism involved it is on the part of the racial and ethnic groups you mentioned as well . . . it has been shown the aforementioned groups (excluding liberal women) have strong family and moral values and are more likely to be against, for example, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion for example . . . however, they refuse to vote for a platform that supports those values . . . instead they voted against a white candidate . . . . and for a candidate of color who does not support their family values

Content from External Source
1) change "shown" to "believed"
2) minorities hold conservative family values at nearly the same rate as the rest of the electorate
3) they did not vote their values as supported by the Rebpublican platform
4) there is no way 93% of blacks or 73% of Hispanics support abortion on demand or gay marriage . . .

Obama won . . .


African American . . . 93%
Hispanic . . . 73%
Women . . . 55%



Women Voters


http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-06/divided-america-revealed-in-exit-polls-of-voters


Obama, 51, built an 11 percentage-point advantage among female voters, exit polls showed. His support of 55 percent of women was one percentage point less than four years ago, when he won a 13-point advantage over Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee.




The Democratic president won 39 percent of the vote among whites, down from 43 percent four years ago. In the swing state of Ohio, he did slightly better, winning 41 percent of the white vote. Nationally, white voters represented 72 percent of the electorate, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to the exit polls.


Obama won 93 percent of the African-American vote, down slightly from 95 percent in 2008. Again, he did better with this group in Ohio, winning 96 percent of blacks there.
Among Hispanics, Obama won a 44-point advantage. Romney secured 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, down from the 2008 Republican share of 31 percent.


Content from External Source
 
I think yuo have missed the pioint - yuo made some generalisations and didnt' provie any sources for them (& still haven't) - I said that those generalisations "seem to be wrong" - essentialy based upon the election results.

as far as I can see your last post is showing that I am correct - the generalisations seem to be wrong based upon the election results.

Let's go through those generalisations shall we:

it has been shown the aforementioned groups (excluding liberal women) have strong family and moral values...

You have not offered any evidence

and are more likely to be against, for example, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion for example . . .

you have not offered any evidence....and the evidence from the election and since seems to be that if they hold these positions they do not think they are all that important

however, they refuse to vote for a platform that supports those values . . .

on this it does seem we agree - insofar as "those values" is limited to "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" (I shall use these in quotes as shorthand for the more complicated and nuanced positions in those 2 general areas)

instead they voted against a white candidate . . .

you have not offered any evidence that "white" was important in their choice - I have offered evidence that they had many considerations other than colour.

and for a candidate of color who does not support their family values . . .

As above in regard of colour, and I have offered evidence that your idea of their family values is incorrect - their family values differ from "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" - they are more concerned with employment, social justice and immigration, in differing amounts and for differing reasons for various groups - and THESE "family values" were much more closely identified with Obama than the GOP/Romney.

so I maintain that your generalisation that they have "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" "family values" seems wrong - their "family values" seem to have been different from the GOP's "family values". Therefore the generalisation that they shared "family values" values with the GOP seems wrong. And of course that they voted for a candidate who "does not support their family values" is also wrong - it seems as if they voted for a candidate who shared their ACTUAL "family values" - rather than the ones the GOP wishes they had.

QED I maintain that your generalisations seem wrong.
 
I think yuo have missed the pioint - yuo made some generalisations and didnt' provie any sources for them (& still haven't) - I said that those generalisations "seem to be wrong" - essentialy based upon the election results.

as far as I can see your last post is showing that I am correct - the generalisations seem to be wrong based upon the election results.

Let's go through those generalisations shall we:



You have not offered any evidence



you have not offered any evidence....and the evidence from the election and since seems to be that if they hold these positions they do not think they are all that important



on this it does seem we agree - insofar as "those values" is limited to "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" (I shall use these in quotes as shorthand for the more complicated and nuanced positions in those 2 general areas)



you have not offered any evidence that "white" was important in their choice - I have offered evidence that they had many considerations other than colour.



As above in regard of colour, and I have offered evidence that your idea of their family values is incorrect - their family values differ from "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" - they are more concerned with employment, social justice and immigration, in differing amounts and for differing reasons for various groups - and THESE "family values" were much more closely identified with Obama than the GOP/Romney.

so I maintain that your generalisation that they have "anti-gay" and "anti-abortion" "family values" seems wrong - their "family values" seem to have been different from the GOP's "family values". Therefore the generalisation that they shared "family values" values with the GOP seems wrong. And of course that they voted for a candidate who "does not support their family values" is also wrong - it seems as if they voted for a candidate who shared their ACTUAL "family values" - rather than the ones the GOP wishes they had.

QED I maintain that your generalisations seem wrong.


I don't really disagree that much from what you are saying . . . in fact I said the following (see below) . . . and my position on minority and family values was to show the white vote against Obama was no more racist than the minority vote overwhelmingly against a white candidate that supported many of their own values . . . see #36/37 above

IMO most people in this country vote along pocketbook issues first (market driven capitalism vs a government managed economy), union and party affiliation, religious and moral values and way down the list is race . . . I admit there are a few that would never vote for a person of color or a woman for example. . . but these are a small segment of the voting public . . .
Content from External Source
 
4) there is no way 93% of blacks or 73% of Hispanics support abortion on demand or gay marriage . . .

Obama won . . .


African American . . . 93%
Hispanic . . . 73%
Women . . . 55%

Was this campaign run on those issues specifically?
Were they current-debate points, or just general background positions not particularly made a big deal of?
 
There's some interesting claims coming out of voting machines not working as they should:



Could be:

A) Broken machine (hardware - like the screen calibration is off)
B) Software bug
C) Deliberate fraud changing Obama votes to Romney (but why not do this behind the scenes?)
D) Fake video (or video exploiting a broken/buggy machine) trying to motivate Obama supporters to vote to avoid the election being stolen, or just trolling


Thread on ATS, detailing this,
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread896991/pg1
sourced from a reddit thread.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting_machine_altering_votes/

I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.

I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said "It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK." and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.
 
Was this campaign run on those issues specifically?
Were they current-debate points, or just general background positions not particularly made a big deal of?
Probably background noise to some and significant issues to others . . .
 
Back
Top