Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
Author Message
shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 60,503
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 7458
I Root For: Tulane
Location: Teh transfer portal
Post: #21
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 10:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 10:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Black Christians aren't stupid. They are already waking up.

They will be told that Christianity is a white mans religion although Africans, black and brown where Christians before Europeans. Toxic White Christianity, you heard it here first.

Democrats hate America. They tell us everyday
01-24-2019 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,511
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #22
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 09:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Perhaps I should have known better after living in California the last 3 years.
But yes, the hatred the party leaders and media showed toward CovCath shocked me.
The raw, emotional intensity that accompanied the hatred was rather atypical, I admit. And maybe that’s what you’re talking about. As I said, they’re usually more subtle. But the underlying hatred itself? To me, it was about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east.

Quote:To your other question: Trump's birtherism was pure racism.
I think there were a few other ingredients in the soup besides that one. But yes, Trump’s birtherism deal was very rotten and nasty stuff.

Quote:as President, few of his actions have been prejudiced. There's three exceptions:
1) The travel ban from 7 Muslim countries. At first, it was even for permanent US residents and green card holders - the very groups who came to America because they are the well-educated opponents of the regimes in those countries.
2) his reaction to Charlottesville. Yes, the Antifa counterprotesters were violent and wrong, but the leaders of the Unite the Right rally were proud White Nationalists, and Trump's comment that there's "good people on both sides" was a racist statement for a leader to make.
3) Saying that illegal immigrants are disease carrying murderers. There's enough reasons to oppose illegal immigration without appealing to marginally true stereotypes about an ethnic group.
The first version of the travel ban was drafted poorly and in haste; I’m glad it was changed to accommodate the people you mentioned. But it was not “racist” either on its face or in its intention.

Trump’s “both sides” comment about Charlottesville was weak. He should have (but did not) make clear that the “both sides” he was referring to was people who are pro/anti Confederate-memorials. By leaving the concept of “both sides” undefined, his enemies twisted it to insinuate that Trump was talking about ”Antifa” and the Nazis. In that respect, the episode just illustrated how dishonest his critics are. While Trump’s comment was vague and ill-advised — and in a moment like that, those are huge, serious flaws — it simply was not “racist”. If there was another “worse” statement than that, which I’m not aware of, I’d be willing to reconsider.

Trump has (of course) said lots of things about illegal immigrants, both before and since he took office. I’ll stipulate that a lot of those statements have been quite ugly, and he has trafficked freely in some vicious stereotypes. And maybe that’s the point you were making. But you said his comments were “racist” and I honestly haven’t heard that from Trump since he became POTUS.

Quote:However, I'd say the same thing about Obama. Other than the treatment of opt-outs for birth control coverage under Obamacare, he had a nearly perfect record at avoiding prejudiced actions/statements in 8 years as President.
We will, I believe, have to disagree about the meaning of the word “nearly”. 04-cheers And to say that “he” avoided prejudiced actions is another way of saying that Obama had a great skill for delegating the dirty work to other people on his team. It was still his circus, and they absolutely targeted the Deplorables in both word and deed with an almost surgical precision.

Quote:Unfortunately, the next round of Democratic politicians do not appear to be following Obama's lead.
They seem to lack his smoothness and style. But ideologically? Obama’s offspring from head to toe.
01-24-2019 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6856
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #23
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 11:03 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 09:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Perhaps I should have known better after living in California the last 3 years.
But yes, the hatred the party leaders and media showed toward CovCath shocked me.
The raw, emotional intensity that accompanied the hatred was rather atypical, I admit. And maybe that’s what you’re talking about. As I said, they’re usually more subtle. But the underlying hatred itself? To me, it was about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east.

Quote:To your other question: Trump's birtherism was pure racism.
I think there were a few other ingredients in the soup besides that one. But yes, Trump’s birtherism deal was very rotten and nasty stuff.

Quote:as President, few of his actions have been prejudiced. There's three exceptions:
1) The travel ban from 7 Muslim countries. At first, it was even for permanent US residents and green card holders - the very groups who came to America because they are the well-educated opponents of the regimes in those countries.
2) his reaction to Charlottesville. Yes, the Antifa counterprotesters were violent and wrong, but the leaders of the Unite the Right rally were proud White Nationalists, and Trump's comment that there's "good people on both sides" was a racist statement for a leader to make.
3) Saying that illegal immigrants are disease carrying murderers. There's enough reasons to oppose illegal immigration without appealing to marginally true stereotypes about an ethnic group.
The first version of the travel ban was drafted poorly and in haste; I’m glad it was changed to accommodate the people you mentioned. But it was not “racist” either on its face or in its intention.

Trump’s “both sides” comment about Charlottesville was weak. He should have (but did not) make clear that the “both sides” he was referring to was people who are pro/anti Confederate-memorials. By leaving the concept of “both sides” undefined, his enemies twisted it to insinuate that Trump was talking about ”Antifa” and the Nazis. In that respect, the episode just illustrated how dishonest his critics are. While Trump’s comment was vague and ill-advised — and in a moment like that, those are huge, serious flaws — it simply was not “racist”. If there was another “worse” statement than that, which I’m not aware of, I’d be willing to reconsider.

Trump has (of course) said lots of things about illegal immigrants, both before and since he took office. I’ll stipulate that a lot of those statements have been quite ugly, and he has trafficked freely in some vicious stereotypes. And maybe that’s the point you were making. But you said his comments were “racist” and I honestly haven’t heard that from Trump since he became POTUS.

Quote:However, I'd say the same thing about Obama. Other than the treatment of opt-outs for birth control coverage under Obamacare, he had a nearly perfect record at avoiding prejudiced actions/statements in 8 years as President.
We will, I believe, have to disagree about the meaning of the word “nearly”. 04-cheers And to say that “he” avoided prejudiced actions is another way of saying that Obama had a great skill for delegating the dirty work to other people on his team. It was still his circus, and they absolutely targeted the Deplorables in both word and deed with an almost surgical precision.

Quote:Unfortunately, the next round of Democratic politicians do not appear to be following Obama's lead.
They seem to lack his smoothness and style. But ideologically? Obama’s offspring from head to toe.

[Image: PotablePhysicalApisdorsatalaboriosa-small.gif]
01-24-2019 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 11:03 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 09:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Perhaps I should have known better after living in California the last 3 years.
But yes, the hatred the party leaders and media showed toward CovCath shocked me.
The raw, emotional intensity that accompanied the hatred was rather atypical, I admit. And maybe that’s what you’re talking about. As I said, they’re usually more subtle. But the underlying hatred itself? To me, it was about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east.

Quote:To your other question: Trump's birtherism was pure racism.
I think there were a few other ingredients in the soup besides that one. But yes, Trump’s birtherism deal was very rotten and nasty stuff.

Quote:as President, few of his actions have been prejudiced. There's three exceptions:
1) The travel ban from 7 Muslim countries. At first, it was even for permanent US residents and green card holders - the very groups who came to America because they are the well-educated opponents of the regimes in those countries.
2) his reaction to Charlottesville. Yes, the Antifa counterprotesters were violent and wrong, but the leaders of the Unite the Right rally were proud White Nationalists, and Trump's comment that there's "good people on both sides" was a racist statement for a leader to make.
3) Saying that illegal immigrants are disease carrying murderers. There's enough reasons to oppose illegal immigration without appealing to marginally true stereotypes about an ethnic group.
The first version of the travel ban was drafted poorly and in haste; I’m glad it was changed to accommodate the people you mentioned. But it was not “racist” either on its face or in its intention.

Trump’s “both sides” comment about Charlottesville was weak. He should have (but did not) make clear that the “both sides” he was referring to was people who are pro/anti Confederate-memorials. By leaving the concept of “both sides” undefined, his enemies twisted it to insinuate that Trump was talking about ”Antifa” and the Nazis. In that respect, the episode just illustrated how dishonest his critics are. While Trump’s comment was vague and ill-advised — and in a moment like that, those are huge, serious flaws — it simply was not “racist”. If there was another “worse” statement than that, which I’m not aware of, I’d be willing to reconsider.

Trump has (of course) said lots of things about illegal immigrants, both before and since he took office. I’ll stipulate that a lot of those statements have been quite ugly, and he has trafficked freely in some vicious stereotypes. And maybe that’s the point you were making. But you said his comments were “racist” and I honestly haven’t heard that from Trump since he became POTUS.

Quote:However, I'd say the same thing about Obama. Other than the treatment of opt-outs for birth control coverage under Obamacare, he had a nearly perfect record at avoiding prejudiced actions/statements in 8 years as President.
We will, I believe, have to disagree about the meaning of the word “nearly”. 04-cheers And to say that “he” avoided prejudiced actions is another way of saying that Obama had a great skill for delegating the dirty work to other people on his team. It was still his circus, and they absolutely targeted the Deplorables in both word and deed with an almost surgical precision.

Quote:Unfortunately, the next round of Democratic politicians do not appear to be following Obama's lead.
They seem to lack his smoothness and style. But ideologically? Obama’s offspring from head to toe.

Wasn't it Obama, "Clinging to religion and guns..."

There had never been a president in my lifetime so dismissive of a large part of the country as Obama. Bill Clinton was a low life rapist scumbucket, but he tried to be president of all the people (especially the women, regardless of their looks).04-cheers

Obama made no such effort.

(note-I am not saying President Trump is better-only there had never been one as bad as Obama prior to Obama).
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2019 11:10 PM by bullet.)
01-24-2019 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #25
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 07:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Tom I think I will send your post to be added to the link of slander against these kids. You should be the type they sue. Anyone that can travel all over the world must have deep pockets. Shouldn't be hard for a good Atty to get your real information.

I hope they do exactly what they said and go after everyone of you that think you can hide behind a screen name and call people anything you want. Or keep repeating lies over and over again. I doubt if they do go that far but someone will have to to end the bullsit like you post over and over and over again. Just because you think you can and get away with it

I'll just send a pic of the kids in blackface and the video of the them clearly making fun of the Native American man, neither of which are in dispute, along with a demand letter to the lawyer in leiu of a SLAPP lawsuit.

Just because you spin the blackface as something else, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Just because you spin the events as them not mocking a native american, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2019 11:47 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
01-24-2019 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #26
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 11:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Tom I think I will send your post to be added to the link of slander against these kids. You should be the type they sue. Anyone that can travel all over the world must have deep pockets. Shouldn't be hard for a good Atty to get your real information.

I hope they do exactly what they said and go after everyone of you that think you can hide behind a screen name and call people anything you want. Or keep repeating lies over and over again. I doubt if they do go that far but someone will have to to end the bullsit like you post over and over and over again. Just because you think you can and get away with it

I'll just send a pic of the kids in blackface and the video of the them clearly making fun of the Native American man, neither of which are in dispute, along with a demand letter to the lawyer in leiu of a SLAPP lawsuit.

The blackout was from 2011 03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

The family of 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann, having already contracted Kentucky’s largest public relations firm to help repair his image after a viral incident outside the Lincoln Memorial, on Thursday hired a Georgia attorney known for aggressive libel and slander suits against media organizations.

L. Lin Wood, nicknamed “attorney for the damned” by former CBS anchor Dan Rather, visited the Sandmann family earlier in the day, according to a news release from Sandmann family attorney Todd McMurtry.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/ken...el-slander

#buckleup the racist Indian and Black Hewbrews will be exposed. Shame on you.
01-24-2019 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #27
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 11:48 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 11:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Tom I think I will send your post to be added to the link of slander against these kids. You should be the type they sue. Anyone that can travel all over the world must have deep pockets. Shouldn't be hard for a good Atty to get your real information.

I hope they do exactly what they said and go after everyone of you that think you can hide behind a screen name and call people anything you want. Or keep repeating lies over and over again. I doubt if they do go that far but someone will have to to end the bullsit like you post over and over and over again. Just because you think you can and get away with it

I'll just send a pic of the kids in blackface and the video of the them clearly making fun of the Native American man, neither of which are in dispute, along with a demand letter to the lawyer in leiu of a SLAPP lawsuit.

The blackout was from 2011 03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

The family of 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann, having already contracted Kentucky’s largest public relations firm to help repair his image after a viral incident outside the Lincoln Memorial, on Thursday hired a Georgia attorney known for aggressive libel and slander suits against media organizations.

L. Lin Wood, nicknamed “attorney for the damned” by former CBS anchor Dan Rather, visited the Sandmann family earlier in the day, according to a news release from Sandmann family attorney Todd McMurtry.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/ken...el-slander

#buckleup the racist Indian and Black Hewbrews will be exposed. Shame on you.

Exit night, enter lawsuit
01-24-2019 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #28
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 11:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 11:48 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 11:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Tom I think I will send your post to be added to the link of slander against these kids. You should be the type they sue. Anyone that can travel all over the world must have deep pockets. Shouldn't be hard for a good Atty to get your real information.

I hope they do exactly what they said and go after everyone of you that think you can hide behind a screen name and call people anything you want. Or keep repeating lies over and over again. I doubt if they do go that far but someone will have to to end the bullsit like you post over and over and over again. Just because you think you can and get away with it

I'll just send a pic of the kids in blackface and the video of the them clearly making fun of the Native American man, neither of which are in dispute, along with a demand letter to the lawyer in leiu of a SLAPP lawsuit.

The blackout was from 2011 03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

The family of 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann, having already contracted Kentucky’s largest public relations firm to help repair his image after a viral incident outside the Lincoln Memorial, on Thursday hired a Georgia attorney known for aggressive libel and slander suits against media organizations.

L. Lin Wood, nicknamed “attorney for the damned” by former CBS anchor Dan Rather, visited the Sandmann family earlier in the day, according to a news release from Sandmann family attorney Todd McMurtry.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/ken...el-slander

#buckleup the racist Indian and Black Hewbrews will be exposed. Shame on you.

Exit night, enter lawsuit

Go right ahead. You'll have to figure out how to prove libel when I didn't mention anyone by name, other than the school. And they were participating in a clearly POLITICAL protest and were wearing POLITICAL garb too. Hard to argue that they are free from criticism while participating in a political protest.

Now if the Catholic Diocese of Northern Kentucky wants to sue me, they're welcome to try to do so, but discovery would be one hell of a *****.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2019 12:02 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
01-24-2019 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,477
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #29
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of this thread is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020. It'll be a shock if Dems win even 32% of the white vote if they continue to harp on identity politics.

Making this worse, the white Catholic shift will be concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2019 12:09 AM by Captain Bearcat.)
01-25-2019 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #30
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2019 12:16 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
01-25-2019 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #31
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman
01-25-2019 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #32
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman

Yes, we think that any political actor is fair game for criticism and that discrimination is WRONG, even if you throw an "AMEN" on the end of it. Full stop.

Feel free to define your religion as nothing more than

1) Defense of Trumpism
2) Demands for Discrimination
3) Demands for taxpayer benefits
4) Demand for zero criticism.

Pure unaccountability of religious leaders and organziations usually ends very poorly for the religious group in the end.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2019 12:22 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
01-25-2019 12:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #33
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman

Yes, we think that any political actor is fair game for criticism and that discrimination is WRONG, even if you throw an "AMEN" on the end of it. Full stop.

Feel free to define your religion as nothing more than

1) Defense of Trumpism
2) Demands for Discrimination
3) Demands for taxpayer benefits
4) Demand for zero criticism.

Pure unaccountability of religious leaders and organziations usually ends very poorly for the religious group in the end.

Is that sincerely what you think Christianity is?
01-25-2019 12:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman

Yes, we think that any political actor is fair game for criticism and that discrimination is WRONG, even if you throw an "AMEN" on the end of it. Full stop.

Feel free to define your religion as nothing more than

1) Defense of Trumpism
2) Demands for Discrimination
3) Demands for taxpayer benefits
4) Demand for zero criticism.

Pure unaccountability of religious leaders and organziations usually ends very poorly for the religious group in the end.

While I would agree with you on the tax issue. The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is that it is defined by the believer, not by government, not by you, or anyone else. I give you the fictitious Seinfeld 'Festivus". George's dad was free to believe what he wished. It didn't mean that anyone else would agree with him, but it was his right.

Trump is hardly defended in any Church I know, but many churches are very concerned about the present anti church tenor coming from the democratic side of the aisle which is what Captain Bearcat is addressing. It is every group's right to defend their self interest.

Discrimination: The concept is quite different than that of Freedom of Association. The government may not discriminate. But neither shall the government tell me who I must, or who I shouldn't, associate with. That's solely my choice and for my own reasons. When I go to school, to a political rally, or to a town hall meeting I should expect to see people from all walks of life there and respect their rights. If I don't then I am being discriminatory. I don't have the right to impose my personal views on my neighbors. Nor do I have the right to threaten them, harass them, or berate them for not accepting my personal beliefs. But, neither do they have that right over me.

Tolerance when appropriately practiced has no need to retaliate!

I can accept that there are many who do not believe as I do. But they don't have a right to make me believe as they do anymore than I have that right over them.

Society however has another unwritten rule, decorum. We must always assume that children are listening and watching and make sure that public remains a domain for all in other words no worse than a PG13 rating. Therefore in public we are more restricted in our expressions. That too is a form of tolerance.

So Tom, tolerance is a two way street, as is respect of individual rights, and we all owe society a slightly tighter standard of decorum for no other reason than respect for one another.

The Church has a right to their beliefs. They have a right to set the standards for membership. What they don't have the right to do is to compel anyone to believe as they do. And as I said the tax issue should be addressed. If it was I promise you the poor, sick, orphaned, and widows of the world would be in better shape.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2019 12:41 AM by JRsec.)
01-25-2019 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,343
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 448
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #35
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
The Catholic Church is under attack from a lot more than just the radical far lefts. Their numbers in general have suffered greatly (I believe) from the news of so many priests molesting young boys and Pope Francis really hasn't been strong enough in his disdain for those evil men. I sat down with my good friend the other day at a Rice women's basketball game (he is the pastor at a prominent Catholic Church in NW Houston, and he was commenting how his church's numbers are way down).

Biden is Catholic. You don't think he would easily carry Ohio?
01-25-2019 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of this thread is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020. It'll be a shock if Dems win even 32% of the white vote if they continue to harp on identity politics.

Making this worse, the white Catholic shift will be concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).
Aside from the Midwest, some of those New England smaller white catholic states Hillary won were pretty close too. Think New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
01-25-2019 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 12:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.

Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).

If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.

No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.

What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.

Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman

They should learn the lesson from West Virginia. Perhaps the most Democratic state in the country in 1996, gave the Democrats 27% of their vote in 2016 after they were attacked and threatened with the end of their biggest industry.
01-25-2019 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 07:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.

Here's the problem with your analysis

73% of American adults are white, but of those

3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats

So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.

And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.

----

Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).


Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.

However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.

Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.

If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.

The whole point of this thread is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020. It'll be a shock if Dems win even 32% of the white vote if they continue to harp on identity politics.

Making this worse, the white Catholic shift will be concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).
Aside from the Midwest, some of those New England smaller white catholic states Hillary won were pretty close too. Think New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Minnesota, traditionally one of the strongest Democratic states was razor thin.
01-25-2019 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
Although there was an interesting article a couple weeks ago, showing President Trump was the strongest in the Republican primaries in the less religious counties. But then if the Democrats continue their war on religion, religious counties could become a strength for President Trump.
01-25-2019 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,511
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #40
RE: Electoral Fallout from Covington Catholic story
(01-25-2019 07:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  [RCC] numbers in general have suffered greatly (I believe) from the news of so many priests molesting young boys and Pope Francis really hasn't been strong enough in his disdain for those evil men.
All true, but esp. the part in bold.

I’m non-Catholic and from a non-Catholic family. So I don’t claim to really know how the Church is doing. But I honestly think it’ll take them a hundred years to get over this (the sex-abuse scandals).

Quote:Biden is Catholic. You don't think he would easily carry Ohio?
Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on how the campaign is going overall. But his status as a Catholic would not tip the scales, IMHO.

But anyway I don’t believe there is any realistic path for him to win the nomination.
01-25-2019 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.