Basso's right, he never "said" anything, he never "says" anything, he just posted stupid blog post after blog post citing the popular "the libs made the whites give subprimes to blacks...and that made the whole thing happen" line of right wing stupidity - then when these posts are shown to be logically and factually deficient (namely because the CRIA did not apply to most of the institutions making subprime loans)- he goes POOF just like he did when he is caught plagiarizing, lying or otherwise defective.
I tried to take his point seriously and asked honest questions about what he was trying to say. He barely responded to one point and ignored the rest (which is not surprising since it has happened before), but if you think he has a point I'd appreciate it if you took a stab at some answers.
Sam is basso's worst nightmare. But I think one day because of all the wing-nuts, Sam will turn into one on the opposite end.
facsinating, and entire thread about "my" explanation for the financial crisis, citing only a slate article, which i'm fairly certain i did not write (will double check that), and said thread has not a single post by your's truly. to the extent that thread shows anything, it shows that you're excellent at building strawmen, but not so great at constructing arguments.
All right: The contention was made here and in other places (various news outlets, talk shows and radio, etc.) that if Obama were to lose, it would be because America is still too much of a racist nation at its heart. In other words, a black man simply couldn't win the presidency because of the color of his skin. So, basso finds an article that says, in short, that exit polls show that the only people who said skin color mattered to both them and their vote were the people who voted for Obama. In other words, the people who voted against him couldn't care less what color the man is, at least according to the polls. I don't think any of you can deny that while Obama himself didn't bring race into the election (at least not that I saw), he really didn't have to: other people and places would, could, and did do it for him. No one wants to be labeled a racist, especially the party of status-quo, stuffy old white men that the GOP is characterized as. So the contention continued that conservatives were too worried about a brother in the White House and would never vote for a black man, while some liberal groups used this to their advantage (and honestly, I can't say I blame them....both parties flame the hell out of each other). This article contends otherwise. And that, uolj, is my point.
i'd still be interested to see an example from here from regular posters. and it didn't say that it was only obama supporters who voted on race, it was just more of them.
Thank you for your detailed response. It really is appreciated. Here are my responses, which I might have already expressed to others in this thread: Your argument is a response to a generic claim, but without some specific examples it is hard to really know whether that claim was ever actually made and by whom. As I said earlier, who are these generic liberals who claim that conservatives are racists (and who don't also acknowledge that some people voted for Obama based on race)? Throwing out a rebuttal without pointing to the original claim makes it difficult to know whether you misunderstood the original claim, attribute the original claim to more people than who actually believe it, or are accurately assessing that original claim. The article does not show what you say it shows, in my opinion. You said, "that exit polls show that the only people who said skin color mattered to both them and their vote were the people who voted for Obama." What that exit poll shows is that people who thought race was important didn't vote any differently than people who thought it was not important. In other words, the importance of race to a voter did not significantly affect the overall result. In addition, I provided a scenario earlier that was intended to show that even if 50% of black voters would vote for Obama simply because of his race and only 3% of white voter would vote against him simply because of his race, you'd still end up with a bigger swing against him. That scenario is far from perfect but I think it still illustrates the point, and is consistent with the exit polls from the article. So not only is there confusion on what the original claim is that is being rebutted, but the article doesn't actually support the rebuttal itself. I might be misunderstanding both, which is why I'm trying to get more clarification, but at this point I don't think that's the case.
I think you are confusing the issue. I respond because perhaps I was one of the ones who wrote something. What I said was Obama would never be elected because he was black and I didn't trust that this country was over general racism enough to elect a black president. That does not mean that people who didn't vote for him did so because they were racists, though. Or, more directly, "you don't vote for Obama, you = racist". That is asinine. I was obviously wrong and he was able to be elected, but I still wasn't comfortable with the way race was handled during his campaign. on the one hnd, it shoed that it was possible, on the other it showed that racism is still strong enough to direct national opinion (or at least color it).
Of course there's not a post by you in it - that's why I stated this. Step 1: Basso posts articles to his blog/D&D making stupid argument, in this case, pushing the fallacy (stupid on its face) that the CRIA & affirmative action are responsible for the credit crunch. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=3963591&highlight=reinvestment#post3963591 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=3923107&highlight=reinvestment#post3923107 (IIRC, there is also an outrageously stupid youtube vid he posted which is not searchable however) Step 2: Argument shown to be stupid http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=155154&page=1&pp=20&highlight=reinvestment Step 3 POOF And it will show how you, once again, will vanish into thin air when you realize that you didn't correctly read the post. With that said, I'll let you POOF
I knew this would get me in trouble. The D&D was a mess running up to the election and I don't remember who said what or even what thread it appeared in, but.... ....could very well be an example. Fair enough, but that doesn't change the point really at all vs. what I believe basso is trying to get across. You're welcome. But what claim? Basso had a point, and that was my only point.
But basso's point was that "they" were wrong. Who is "they"? What was wrong? I'm saying that if the point is more people voted for Obama because he was black than against him because he was black, then that point is wrong. If the point is that people claimed that many McCain supporters were racist but Obama supporters were not, I'm asking who made that claim and where, because I don't think many (any?) people did. As far as I (and apparently many others) can tell, basso doesn't have a valid point, because he won't expand on it and the only possible explanations that we can come up with are based on a faulty premise or faulty understanding of what that article says.
I agree with this. Near as I can tell, so does basso. Also, the article he posted shows this as well.
Yes - I responded months ago. Please see the thread that you POOF'd away from. Thanks in retro-advance.
But that point is wrong, and I've given reasoning to support why I think it is wrong. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4370111&postcount=76 Perhaps you can explain why you think the article says that and answer the questions in that post?
