Who wins the bro bloc after Trump is gone?

[Moonbeam]

It isn't ad hominem to call him a racist. It's demonstrable fact at this point. He's made several objectively racist posts already.

I was thinking more about calling him a moron etc. but let’s talk racist for a moment. He was called a racist but said he is not. Now you are calling him one again. What I am saying is that will buy you nothing. What I would want to do is try and look at his comments you consider demonstrable and try to figure out why he does not see them as you do. This would require me to put myself in his shoes and see if I could say what he said without being a racist.

If you would care to tell me exactly what statements you think demonstrate he is a racist, I could try to find out why he could have said them as he did. I would need to know what you think are he said that demonstrates your conclusion.

 

[nickqt]

View attachment 88759
Say what you want to say, Donald Trump turned out a lot of people into politics who didn't care, or felt disillusioned...especially a lot of white bros. Guys like this don't like talking about race, don't like establishment pols like Haley and Biden, but Trump will get their ear.

When he is eventually gone, who will pick up this voting bloc or will they tune out again?

Hunter Biden, but only if he really leans into releasing his dick picks.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm an Independent, not too left or too right.

You will accept then that I am a roast beef sandwich? There are psychological reasons, I believe, that, before the advent of science, the earth was thought to be positioned at the center of everything, and everybody who held this view derived a sense that made them feel special creating a long uphill battle before this notion of centricity was replaced by our present day cosmological understandings.

In the same way the Bible says it is the Word of God, but my suspicion is that ordinary people from time to time or tomb to tomb got their fingers in there.

 

[mikeymikec]

You have to have a conservative opposition, you can't be a one-party bloc

Nope, you don't.

It's all relative. America has two right-wing parties, one is further right than the other. If they were by your standards two left-wing parties, one would still be further right than the other.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Either the Democratic party would split into two (or more), one more left than the other, or another party would form.

 

[iRONic]

SHITLOL!!!

Two pages of this guy trolling the fuck out of y’all ?!?!?

SHITLOL!!!

 

[brycejones]

I was thinking more about calling him a moron etc. but let’s talk racist for a moment. He was called a racist but said he is not. Now you are calling him one again. What I am saying is that will buy you nothing. What I would want to do is try and look at his comments you consider demonstrable and try to figure out why he does not see them as you do. This would require me to put myself in his shoes and see if I could say what he said without being a racist.

If you would care to tell me exactly what statements you think demonstrate he is a racist, I could try to find out why he could have said them as he did. I would need to know what you think are he said that demonstrates your conclusion.

yawn

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope, you don't.

It's all relative. America has two right-wing parties, one is further right than the other. If they were by your standards two left-wing parties, one would still be further right than the other.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Either the Democratic party would split into two (or more), one more left than the other, or another party would form.

Any dreams of a multiparty expression of public opinion is dashed by a winner take all system. We are perennially stuck with the only rational vote going to the lesser of two evils.

 

[Moonbeam]

SHITLOL!!!

Two pages of this guy trolling the fuck out of y’all ?!?!?

SHITLOL!!!

Disgust, I believe, has its origins in a millions of year old gag reflex that is designed to make us wretch up contaminated food. But everywhere we run into something that we say makes us sick it is because this reflex is being triggered by some unconscious association of the present with the past. I would say that one of the greatest sources of paranoia and fear is the fear of making others sick and that we learned that fear by having been told that our behavior in childhood made our guardians and others say we made them sick. Of course they were already sick from their own childhoods.

Typically, anything that challenges our phony sense of self worth, regardless of what substitute form it takes, will make us gag. Your choices, then, it seems to me is to attack or to run. Attacks can be verbal or physical and running can consist of sticking your head in the sand by ignoring the irritating source or attempting to silence them. Another way to feel sick is to notice they are getting attention.

A little self knowledge and personal wisdom might help. If you don't believe the lie that you are personally sickening, you won't project it on other people. Of course, the problem there is that it requires noticing that you learned to feel that you are sickening and everybody believes what they feel and tells themselves they don't for that reason.

 

[iRONic]

So many words…

 

[eelw]

Weird Moonie treating OP like how most of us treat Moonie.

 

[Moonbeam]

The dudes in the OP’s pic might be bros but Boston voted under 10% for Trump. The “bros” don’t like him here. Find another city for your silly argument.

Yours is the first post that asks a reasonable question. You back it up with statistics. It could be however, that in searching for a pic of Bros he ran across one of some young people from Boston. What is true in Boston is not necessarily true elsewhere. Why do you think he is making the claim that he has?

Could it not be that he is challenging liberals because he believes that liberals have no answer to a certain group of young voters that, frankly, conservatives can attract? Now if he is right, and it seems to me he feels he is right, should not the first question be, is there anything in his point of view that could be right about some young voters, and if so shouldn't liberals seek to have some answer to that. What do we have to lose. Secondly, if he is wrong is there any further data that could perhaps calm his concerns. It strikes me that politically concerned and aggrieved can often walk hand in hand. I think contempt only deepens that link.

Personally I do not know enough to refute his point but I like your input.

 

[brycejones]

I would love it if the OP ever provided data to support his threads. He has been asked repeatedly and has yet to do so.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I would love it if the OP ever provided data to support his threads. He has been asked repeatedly and has yet to do so.

But he gave us pix of bros 😱😱😱

 

[soulcougher73]

Little boy who cried wolf is back to tell us how independent he is

 

[GettyRoad]

I think bros want inflation to go down, and they haven't felt the impact of the IRA act yet....that's what bros are looking for...

For all this talk of Trump being a bigot, he attracts a lot of rappers, etc.

 

[brycejones]

I think bros want inflation to go down, and they haven't felt the impact of the IRA act yet....that's what bros are looking for...

For all this talk of Trump being a bigot, he attracts a lot of rappers, etc.

View attachment 88779

Still no voting block data to back up your claims?

 

[dank69]

I was thinking more about calling him a moron etc. but let’s talk racist for a moment. He was called a racist but said he is not. Now you are calling him one again. What I am saying is that will buy you nothing. What I would want to do is try and look at his comments you consider demonstrable and try to figure out why he does not see them as you do. This would require me to put myself in his shoes and see if I could say what he said without being a racist.

If you would care to tell me exactly what statements you think demonstrate he is a racist, I could try to find out why he could have said them as he did. I would need to know what you think are he said that demonstrates your conclusion.

Have at it, hoss:

Cop watches should be in Black areas with white cops (I believe white cops should not be allowed in Black areas, nor should they put their lives for those areas).....where the trouble usually is....

There's nothing racist about what I said. Policing in this country would be better if white cops and blacks never interacted physically. Nothing racist about this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Have at it, hoss:

Thank you for your reply.

First he says that "cop watches should be in Black areas with white cops (I believe white cops should not be allowed in Black areas, nor should they put their lives for those areas).....where the trouble usually is...." Then he says that white cops should not be in Black areas. Which is it? This makes no sense that I can see.

Next he says "There's nothing racist about what I said. Policing in this country would be better if white cops and blacks never interacted physically. Nothing racist about this"

Again what does he mean. Does he mean that Black and White cops should not be assigned together or does he mean it would be better if all cops never used physical violence?

So I do not understand what he is saying so I can't conclude if I think it's racist or not. Also, if you want to make negative inferences why does it have to be racism that forms his opinion. Is law enforcement more effective in Black areas if the police are also Black. Would that not be true if it is typical in Black areas to hold White police in contempt because they White since racism is often a two way street. It is being recommended by many that some sort of Arab police force govern Gaza in place of Hamas. This is a point that it seems to me to be open to rational debate.

 

[MrSquished]

I think the OP is just a fucking whacked out moron. I don't think he even knows what racism is. That's how oblivious he is.

 

[dank69]

Thank you for your reply.

First he says that "cop watches should be in Black areas with white cops (I believe white cops should not be allowed in Black areas, nor should they put their lives for those areas).....where the trouble usually is...." Then he says that white cops should not be in Black areas. Which is it? This makes no sense that I can see.

It took me awhile to parse that shit sandwich myself. He is saying that white cops should not be allowed in black areas, but if they are, those are the only areas where cop watches should be carried out.

This short post implies or outright states the following:
A) There are black areas. (racist statement)
B) Black areas are where the trouble usually is. (racist statement)
C) White cops should not be allowed in black areas. (racist statement)
D) White cops should not risk their lives to police black areas. (racist statement)
E) If white cops continue to be allowed in black areas, we need cop watches to keep them in check. (implied racism)

Next he says "There's nothing racist about what I said. Policing in this country would be better if white cops and blacks never interacted physically. Nothing racist about this"

Again what does he mean. Does he mean that Black and White cops should not be assigned together or does he mean it would be better if all cops never used physical violence?

I have no idea how you got either of these options. He doesn't say anything about black cops. He says white cops and blacks, not black cops. I suppose interacted physically could be taken to mean white cops should never escalate to physical measures, only verbal, but that doesn't make any sense. Are they supposed to just stand there when physically attacked by a POC? No, I take it to mean they should never get near each other, ever, which is another textbook racist statement.

So I do not understand what he is saying so I can't conclude if I think it's racist or not. Also, if you want to make negative inferences why does it have to be racism that forms his opinion. Is law enforcement more effective in Black areas if the police are also Black. Would that not be true if it is typical in Black areas to hold White police in contempt because they White since racism is often a two way street. It is being recommended by many that some sort of Arab police force govern Gaza in place of Hamas. This is a point that it seems to me to be open to rational debate.

You are describing segregation, which is a racist construct. If you need help identifying racist statements, "white people x" or "black people x" are almost always (definitely always?) racist statements no matter what you replace x with.

 

[Moonbeam]

It took me awhile to parse that shit sandwich myself. He is saying that white cops should not be allowed in black areas, but if they are, those are the only areas where cop watches should be carried out.

If he is saying that how is it racist. He is saying that the greatest risk to citizens from cops is when White cops patrol high population Black areas that's where cop watching can prevent bad behavior to Black people. Hardly sounds racist to me.

This short post implies or outright states the following:
A) There are black areas. (racist statement)

I must be a racists. I think Black areas exist and it's a neutral observation based on numbers.

B) Black areas are where the trouble usually is. (racist statement)

Black areas patrolled by racist white cops would be where the trouble is.

C) White cops should not be allowed in black areas. (racist statement)

Because of the number and newsworthiness of White police abuse of Black people the opinion, if that is his, can just be if White cops were kept out of Black areas there would be less abuse going both ways and life would be better for everybody. I am not saying that is my opinion, only that it is an opinion one might hold without being a racist.

D) White cops should not risk their lives to police black areas. (racist statement) Could be a simple statement of belief that White cops should not be put in a position where they are exposed to Black racism. Again an opinion that could be argued.

E) If white cops continue to be allowed in black areas, we need cop watches to keep them in check. (implied racism)

Already went over this. The point of cop watch is to prevent police abuse. Many cops are White and racism is color blind as to whom may be infected by it.

I have no idea how you got either of these options. He doesn't say anything about black cops. He says white cops and blacks, not black cops. I suppose interacted physically could be taken to mean white cops should never escalate to physical measures, only verbal, but that doesn't make any sense. Are they supposed to just stand there when physically attacked by a POC? No, I take it to mean they should never get near each other, ever, which is another textbook racist statement.


You are describing segregation, which is a racist construct. If you need help identifying racist statements, "white people x" or "black people x" are almost always (definitely always?) racist statements no matter what you replace x with.

He specifically says White and Black cops above. Neither White or Black cops, he may feel, should resort to physical violence when they interact with the public. I believe in self defense so that would be the ideal but not practical in all cases.

 

[Meghan54]

I would love it if the OP ever provided data to support his threads. He has been asked repeatedly and has yet to do so.

He never will. He’s a shit pot stirrer, a troll pure and simple. His discourse is juvenile at best. Mildly entertaining—definitely laughable.

 

[GettyRoad]

Thank you for your reply.

First he says that "cop watches should be in Black areas with white cops (I believe white cops should not be allowed in Black areas, nor should they put their lives for those areas).....where the trouble usually is...." Then he says that white cops should not be in Black areas. Which is it? This makes no sense that I can see.

Next he says "There's nothing racist about what I said. Policing in this country would be better if white cops and blacks never interacted physically. Nothing racist about this"

Again what does he mean. Does he mean that Black and White cops should not be assigned together or does he mean it would be better if all cops never used physical violence?

So I do not understand what he is saying so I can't conclude if I think it's racist or not. Also, if you want to make negative inferences why does it have to be racism that forms his opinion. Is law enforcement more effective in Black areas if the police are also Black. Would that not be true if it is typical in Black areas to hold White police in contempt because they White since racism is often a two way street. It is being recommended by many that some sort of Arab police force govern Gaza in place of Hamas. This is a point that it seems to me to be open to rational debate.

White cops should probably not be allowed to work in black areas. There's nothing racist about that.

 

[alien42]

White cops should probably not be allowed to work in black areas. There's nothing racist about that.

You can't actually believe that segregation isn't racist.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can't actually believe that segregation isn't racist.

To segregate vegetables for a soup might be done out of consideration for cooking time. Segregating populations in a medical study might relate to how genetics may impact drug effects. To segregate schools by race would be racism.

Segregation is a noun that describes an effect on the ground likely the result if inequalities created by racist thinking from the past or the present but has the property of describing a reality that exists. a definition of segregation is a definition. The act of defining isn't racist, but depending on the definition it could be.