Kupelian Makes Predictions »« Bob Larson Kicks Out a Gay Demon

Jackson: Blacks Will Vote Against Obama

Bishop E.W. Jackson, who runs a group called Staying True to America’s National Destiny (STAND), went on Janet Mefferd’s radio show and absurdly claimed that black Christians are going to vote against Obama in November because he supports gay rights.

Jackson: When the Democrat Party [sic] said we’re making same-sex marriage a part of our platform and the President came out in support of it I think those were straws that broke the camel’s back and people say ‘you know, we’ve had it.’ Black folks have voted overwhelmingly against these things when they’ve come up on state constitutional questions and now I think many are saying, ‘you know what I voted for this president the first time, I cannot vote for him again and I cannot support this party because it’s in rebellion against God.’

Mefferd: What has been the reaction, you have mentioned a lot of people have been reacting to your video and overwhelmingly you’ve had great support from black pastors, what about rank and file black Christians listening to what you’ve had to say, are they with you?

Jackson: I think overwhelmingly yes. I think there’s a generational issue here and people ask me, ‘how can the black community support people who just absolutely reject their most core values’ and I said because it’s not logical, it’s emotional. There’s a sense of fear, there’s a sense that this is what we’re supposed to do, but I think younger people are coming along. I noticed younger pastors, when I said younger I’m not talking about 20s and 30s I think in the 50’s they’re saying ‘you know what we need to take another look at this?’ I am finding that rank and file black folks have come up to me and they’ve said: how do I change my registration? I’ve voted for this party in the past, I’ve been a kneejerk Democrat, I’m never going to do that again. I’ve had people come to me in tears and say ‘thank you for waking me up.’ God is doing something Janet, it’s far beyond me and that video, I believe God is doing something to stir the hearts of His people as an eagle stirs a nest.

Another wingnut who thinks anecdotes from a tiny sample size of people who follow him are indicative of what everyone believes. The polls are showing Obama with about 95% support from black voters. So when they vote for him in those numbers, will he concede that God really didn’t stir anyone’s hearts? Of course not. Being a wingnut means never having to admit you were wrong, no matter how obviously you are.

Comments

  1. dmcclean says

    “… as an eagle stirs a nest.”

    Say what? I even read the chapter in Deuteronomy that this is apparently in reference too, and I still don’t understand what this metaphor is supposed to mean.

  2. says

    dmcclean, it makes perfect sense:
    Just as an eagle stirs its chicks to flight with bird cries, so is God stirring America with cries of “Fag! Fag!”.
    Brings a patriotic tear to your eye, don’t it?

  3. Trebuchet says

    The polls are showing Obama with about 95% support from black voters. So when they vote for him in those numbers, will he concede that God really didn’t stir anyone’s hearts?

    Don’t be silly. Those voters are just No True Scotsmen Christians.

  4. Michael Heath says

    E.W. Jackson’s not merely wrong on process because he’s extrapolating a prediction from a tiny unrepresentative sample, but also because of this argument:

    I cannot support this party [the Democratic party] because it’s in rebellion against God.

    The very same holy dogma he uses to justify his hatred and bigotry of gays and opposition to the Democratic party indicts the Republican party far more than the Democrats. It’s not like the Bible’s only topic is how to hate and persecute gays, if it even does that.

    The previous litmus test leveraged to demand oppose the Democrats, abortion, also lacks biblical justification as so-called pro-lifers act out their cause. What the Bible does do is promote authoritarian forms of tyrannical governments such as monarchies and theocracies; along with treating the least among us as if they’re God, loving our enemies, treating others like we’d like to be treated (hopefully the non-masochists), and taking care of the poor, widows, and children. And finally, living with the idea the end-times are just around the corner so communal living which advances the religion which is explicitly promoted in a way that destroys families and mostly does away with procreation is also the order of the day.

    Sounds like we should be combining Marxism, American hippies, and the Shakers into a movement.

  5. John Hinkle says

    So when they vote for him in those numbers, will he concede that God really didn’t stir anyone’s hearts? Of course not. Being a wingnut means never having to admit you were wrong, no matter how obviously you are.

    A wingnut never has to admit he’s wrong because everything he says is made up bullshit that he pulls out of his ass. It’s a perpetual Gish Gallop. That sort of speech always goes forward; it never revisits previous speech because it’s probable that the previous bullshit contradicts the current bullshit. Besides, since it’s made up, it’s difficult to remember. It’s an appeal to a primitive response mechanism in our brains from millenia up our ancestral tree. Probably the lizard part of our brains.

  6. says

    Maybe they should change the name to:

    “Staying True to America’s Nationalist KKKristianity (STANK)”

    Or,they can keep the acronym, but change the name to:

    ” Staying True to America’s Numbnuts Dumbfuckery (STAND)”

  7. says

    Maybe they should change the name to:

    “Staying True to America’s Nationalist KKKristianity (STANK)”

    Or,they can keep the acronym, but change the name to:

    ” Staying True to America’s Numbnuts Dumbfuckery (STAND)”

    But, hey, maybe they’re onto something and it’s the new, stealth (G)A(Y)CORN that is working to suppress the blackvote.

  8. dingojack says

    Demo – “…it’s the new, stealth (G)A(Y)CORN that is working to suppress the blackvote”.

    Damn those Log Cabin Republicans… [shakes fist].

    Dingo

  9. royt says

    This blog is silly as well, because like most of Ed’s posts on his blog it would seem, they consist of about 70-80 percent of the post being quotes from someone, the remaining percentage consists of Brayton insulting those who he hates because they don’t go along with his agenda. Like for example: “Bishop E.W. Jackson, who runs a group called Staying True to America’s National Destiny (STAND), went on Janet Mefferd’s radio show and absurdly claimed that black Christians are going to vote against Obama in November because he supports gay rights.” I mean really,…he’s not even saying anything there, he’s just trying to dismiss their good points about african american voters. Then Ed talks about the “polls” I mean seriously, what do polls proove, nobody has voted on anything yet, they never tell who, or how many people took the poll. For all we know they could have just asked mostly left-leaning african americans. I think Ed will find out what percentage of african americans really support Obama v Romney in November.

  10. Yoritomo says

    Royt @9:

    Actually quite a few people have voted already, including Michelle Obama. And any remotely respectable poll will tell exactly how many people were polled (though for obvious reasons they won’t list all the thousands of people they polled). They also include a margin of error which should take care of them accidentally getting a biased sample. Now the people who come to Bishop Jackson in tears – now that is a biased sample.

  11. royt says

    You see this is the problem with people following folks like Ed Brayton (biased God/America Hating Leftists), they get get brainwashed and then they cannot reason. I mean Yoritomo: “Actually quite a few people have voted already, including Michelle Obama. And any remotely respectable poll will tell exactly how many people were polled (though for obvious reasons they won’t list all the thousands of people they polled). They also include a margin of error which should take care of them accidentally getting a biased sample. Now the people who come to Bishop Jackson in tears – now that is a biased sample”

    I mean really Yoritomo cited nobody excet Michelle Obama (kind of obvious that she would vote for her husband). You never cited anything real (no evidence or real people to back yourself up or Mr. Brayton). Maybe you should consider following one of Mr. Brayton’s critics, you might actually start to see the light.

    Here is the link: chrisstaabsblog.blogspot.com

  12. matty1 says

    they never tell who, or how many people took the poll

    While I doubt you actually want to engage in any sort of discussion for the sake of others reading I should point out that this is false. The news reports you hear may not describe what the pollsters did in detail but the actual poll results will and using the internet you can check this out.

    For example here is a report by Gallup on support for the two candidates by different groups. Now scroll down and at the bottom is a section headed ‘Survey Methods’

    I won’t paste it all here but it starts off.

    Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking April 11-May 6, 2012, with a random sample of 11,141 registered voters, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

    So there is your total number of people polled, further down we learn that 816 of the people polled were identified as black. There is also a section on how they selected who to call.

    Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

    Now I’m sure the Gallup methodology is not perfect and they admit to possible sources of error in that section. However the claim that poll results are published without any information on how many people were polled or how those people were chosen is plainly false.

    The other issue of ‘who’ is trickier because I’m not sure what you want – names and addresses of everyone involved? But the sampling methods described don’t leave a lot of room for picking out only ‘left-leaning african americans’

  13. Chiroptera says

    royt, #9: I think Ed will find out what percentage of african americans really support Obama v Romney in November.

    And you will, too, find out come November.

    Now here’s the thing: if a very large percentage of African-Americans do vote for Romney, that will be a very, very interesting political fact. I bet Ed will eventually write a blog post about it, and I would be very surprised if he wouldn’t include a sentence or two about how this was unexpected to him.

    On the other hand, if it turns out that only a very tiny fraction of African-Americans vote for Romney, I doubt that you will be back admitting that you were wrong.

  14. says

    Lovely, a fan of Chris Staab (or, more likely in my opinion, Chris Staab himself). We’ll definitely get good, solid reasoning there.

  15. Ichthyic says

    You see this is the problem with people following folks like Ed Brayton (biased God/America Hating Leftists), they get get brainwashed and then they cannot reason.

    Projection:

    You has you some.

  16. says

    If this reflects Jackson’s ability to forecast events in general, then I’d expect that predictions based on mere chance would mop the floor with him in a head-to-head forecasting competition.

  17. dan4 says

    royt@9: “…Brayton insulting those who hates because they don’t go along with his agenda.”

    royt@11: “…folks like Ed Brayton (biased God/AMERICA HATING LEFTISTS)…”

    Here’s a quarter, Roy. Go buy yourself some self-awareness.

  18. gwangung says

    Then Ed talks about the “polls” I mean seriously, what do polls proove, nobody has voted on anything yet, they never tell who, or how many people took the poll.

    That’s generally because you’re too damn lazy to get off your ass and actually read about the methodology.

    Put some minimal effort in (that includes understanding words with more than one syllable). It will improve your posts.

  19. dan4 says

    @20: gwansung: Not to mention that most of the time, notations that come with published polls DO indicate “how many people took the poll.”

  20. says

    Oh, dear; I see that Hemmo Royt has made it to this thread as well.

    It’s all very nice that some of the commentors feel it is necessary to be civil to a dickwad like, ‘ol Royt. I think that trying to explain something to a guy like Hemmo, when a simple, “Go fuck yourself” will elicit pretty much the same degree of introspection and desire to actually gain some understanding of the subject matter–before he blows shit out of his piehole–is a serious time waster.

  21. says

    Would you care to make a wager on the percentage of the black vote goes to Obama? I’ll set the over/under at 92% and even offer 2-1 odds, for any amount of money you’d care to wager.

  22. Doug Little says

    Another wingnut who thinks anecdotes from a tiny sample size of people who follow him are indicative of what everyone believes. The polls are showing Obama with about 95% support from black voters. So when they vote for him in those numbers, will he concede that God really didn’t stir anyone’s hearts? Of course not. Being a wingnut means never having to admit you were wrong, no matter how obviously you are.

    You get a lot of this type of thing over in the comments section of Nate Silver’s 538 blog. People post one inane comment, some of the regular commentators point out that it is an inane comment and then ask if they care to back inane comment up with their hard earned cash or ask if the original poster will return to the site and admit they are wrong after the election. Every time there is no reply from original poster. I blame Fox News, they invented this culture of “cold reading news”, where you just say any unsubstantiated shit in the hope that you get something right.

  23. Doug Little says

    Wow, I hadn’t read the thread before posting my comment above, but this royt character is exactly what type of dissenting comment the 538 site gets from the wingnuts.

  24. says

    The Matority have almost NEVER followered God. Jesus put it this way, Broad is the way that leads to destruction and a many are going that way, but NARROW is the way to life and NOW and THEN there is a traveler going that true way. So to think because The OVER WHELMING majority will follow a leader that teaches against God and only a few will follow the truth is EXACTLY what a true movement of God is about, accroding to Jesus. Thise few may be 1,000, 500,000 or 2 million if it grows.

  25. dingojack says

    Bill – In America something like 76% self-identify as christian, so I guess they are following the ‘BROAD path’ while the 10-15% of self-identifying ‘nones’ are on the ‘NARROW path’ to righteousness, correct?
    Dingo

Leave a Reply