• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Head LaPierre: 'One Year Of Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough'

S

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
NRA Head LaPierre: 'One Year Of Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough'

the headline seems a bit broken (see quote below, underlined), but the meaning of the message seems the same.

National Rifle Association CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a crowd of Second Amendment advocates at the NRA’s 144th annual meeting that “eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough,” which appeared to refer both to President Barack Obama’s race and presumptive 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s sex.

LaPierre’s comment at the gathering in Nashville, Tennessee, were tweeted by New York Times reporter Nick Corasaniti, who attended the meeting Saturday:
Click to expand...


oooh boy, this isn't dog-whistling, this is dog-whistle-megaphoning. the next 18 months are going to be a hoot. :roll:
:shock:
 
Last edited:
I kid you not, the NRA has called me at least 10 times just since Jan 1 asking for donations under the guise of "Michael Bloomberg, and like minded liberal gun grabbers, are coming for your guns." It no longer shocks me how far Wayne LaPierre will go to make a political point, even if it means sounding like an angry old white guy.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
NRA Head LaPierre: 'One Year Of Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough'

the headline seems a bit broken (see quote below, underlined), but the meaning of the message seems the same.




oooh boy, this isn't dog-whistling, this is dog-whistle-megaphoning. the next 18 months are going to be a hoot. :roll:
:shock:
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, he's got a point, if you believe that Obama was elected mainly because all the liberals wanted to show how non-racist they are.
(which is a sham and we all know it, 'cause they really are).
 
OrphanSlug said:
I kid you not, the NRA has called me at least 10 times just since Jan 1 asking for donations under the guise of "Michael Bloomberg, and like minded liberal gun grabbers, are coming for your guns." It no longer shocks me how far Wayne LaPierre will go to make a political point, even if it means sounding like an angry old white guy.
Click to expand...
Lifetime member since early 80s. Never got a call from them. I call BS on those that are "bothered" by phone calls.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, to be honest, he's got a point, if you believe that Obama was elected mainly because all the liberals wanted to show how non-racist they are.
(which is a sham and we all know it, 'cause they really are).
Click to expand...

Of course Obama was only elected because he's black and voters were assuaging their guilt with affirmative action for POTUS. A black person could never win on the merits over an old white guy and a bat crap crazy white running mate! LOL.
 
JasperL said:
Of course Obama was only elected because he's black and voters were assuaging their guilt with affirmative action for POTUS. A black person could never win on the merits over an old white guy and a bat crap crazy white running mate! LOL.
Click to expand...

I'm not so certain that I'd make the assertion that 'a black person could never win on their own merits'. Had Colin Powell or Condi run and be elected, I believe they would have made it on their merits. I see it as part of their personal make up, not to accept anything less than that.

But in the case of Obama, with his distinct lack of experience, lack of track record, not even a single full term as a Senator, the Biased Lame Stream Media lack of vetting, their collective ideological orgasm over him (tingly legs and all), and shoving him down the electorate's throats, it does make you wonder.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, to be honest, he's got a point, if you believe that Obama was elected mainly because all the liberals wanted to show how non-racist they are.
(which is a sham and we all know it, 'cause they really are).
Click to expand...

I agree there is a point there about Obama gaining some degree of support because of his race, but that only goes so far. It will be a similar story assuming Clinton wins as the first female president. But the way that statement comes off in that context has a great potential for backlash. It is going to be easy for liberal leaning outlets to suggest Wayne LaPierre is saying we need a white male back in the White House even though that is not quite what he said. It comes off more divisive than making the real point about elections based on being a minority, or female, or whatever else.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Lifetime member since early 80s. Never got a call from them. I call BS on those that are "bothered" by phone calls.
Click to expand...

That is one way to call me a liar, props for that!
 
OrphanSlug said:
I agree there is a point there about Obama gaining some degree of support because of his race, but that only goes so far. It will be a similar story assuming Clinton wins as the first female president. But the way that statement comes off in that context has a great potential for backlash. It is going to be easy for liberal leaning outlets to suggest Wayne LaPierre is saying we need a white male back in the White House even though that is not quite what he said. It comes off more divisive than making the real point about elections based on being a minority, or female, or whatever else.
Click to expand...

Well, if Clinton wins she will at least have some experience to explain the vote. She is far more experienced than Obama and was hands down the better of the two options in the DNC primary in 2008.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, if Clinton wins she will at least have some experience to explain the vote. She is far more experienced than Obama and was hands down the better of the two options in the DNC primary in 2008.
Click to expand...

That could be so, but we do have an issue to discuss assuming she wins. How much was based on that experience to explain the vote vs. how much was based on her being a woman to explain the vote,. And that speaks to what Wayne LaPierre very poorly tried to address.
 
The conservative Facebook groups that I follow are going mental over Hillary's announcement. Nothing substantive; just an unending spew of word slurry.
It doesn't surprise me that the NRA is mentally slurring here too.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That could be so, but we do have an issue to discuss assuming she wins. How much was based on that experience to explain the vote vs. how much was based on her being a woman to explain the vote,. And that speaks to what Wayne LaPierre very poorly tried to address.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely, what Hillary calls "experience" the rest of the world calls "baggage". And her interpersonal skills are notoriously terrible, so if she wins then a significant contributing factor will be people who value the demographic significance over pretty much everything else.
 
LaPierre's intentional efforts to flame racial tensions shows that pitiful excuses to periodically raise the NRA's profile works among its dumbest members.
 
To be fair, the entire Democrat party is one big collection of demographic groups and the party glorifies in their differences. Clinton's whole campaign in 2007/08 was punctuated by talk of breaking the glass ceiling. Unfortunately for her, there was a tinted glass ceiling that was also in line to be broken.

I'll give LaPierre some slack and suggest what he's getting at is "hey America, maybe this time try to vote for someone for reasons other than their skin colour or gender". Doesn't necessarily mean vote against a woman or a person of colour - just means don't vote for them just because they're a woman or person of colour.

Let's see if the left wants to come to the defense of LaPierre as they did Obama in the thread about Obama's Supreme Leader comments. The left are such wonderful champions of speaking to context and not sound bites, so I'm told.
 
CanadaJohn said:
To be fair, the entire Democrat party is one big collection of demographic groups and the party glorifies in their differences. Clinton's whole campaign in 2007/08 was punctuated by talk of breaking the glass ceiling. Unfortunately for her, there was a tinted glass ceiling that was also in line to be broken.

I'll give LaPierre some slack and suggest what he's getting at is "hey America, maybe this time try to vote for someone for reasons other than their skin colour or gender". Doesn't necessarily mean vote against a woman or a person of colour - just means don't vote for them just because they're a woman or person of colour.

Let's see if the left wants to come to the defense of LaPierre as they did Obama in the thread about Obama's Supreme Leader comments. The left are such wonderful champions of speaking to context and not sound bites, so I'm told.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that is what LaPierre meant, but if he could have found a less elegant way to state it, I can't imagine it. That said, it plays to the false narrative that "the only reason people voted for Barack Obama is because he's black." A big reason Obama won so handily in 2008 was Republican fatigue, the flipside of which gives the GOP an edge in 2016.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Lifetime member since early 80s. Never got a call from them. I call BS on those that are "bothered" by phone calls.
Click to expand...

Your profile states you are from Melbourne, Florida. I tend to doubt that. I have personally never met anyone from Melbourne so your claim seems unlikely.

;)
 
Kobie said:
I'm sure that is what LaPierre meant, but if he could have found a less elegant way to state it, I can't imagine it. That said, it plays to the false narrative that "the only reason people voted for Barack Obama is because he's black." A big reason Obama won so handily in 2008 was Republican fatigue, the flipside of which gives the GOP an edge in 2016.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, as far as the 2008 Presidential election goes, however, I would say that Obama's Democrat primary win was in large part attributable to his race and the way he played it and his reelection had a lot to do with his race because his record in office was disastrous and didn't deserve a repeat and his second term has shown that to be true.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue that if Obama had been primarily white he still would have won the Democrat nomination over Clinton in 2008. To that extent, his race played a significant role.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree with you, as far as the 2008 Presidential election goes, however, I would say that Obama's Democrat primary win was in large part attributable to his race and the way he played it and his reelection had a lot to do with his race because his record in office was disastrous and didn't deserve a repeat and his second term has shown that to be true.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue that if Obama had been primarily white he still would have won the Democrat nomination over Clinton in 2008. To that extent, his race played a significant role.
Click to expand...

Like how unemployment achieved a key metric FASTER than his opponent claimed it would if he could manage the economy?
 
the NRA purposely left Christie and Paul out of their weekend convention, so if they actually want to end the democratic stranglehold, they have a funny way of showing it.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Like how unemployment achieved a key metric FASTER than his opponent claimed it would if he could manage the economy?
Click to expand...

Does he get everything wrong - no. On balance, he's a disaster.

But just out of curiosity, perhaps you could tell us what mysterious policies pushed and initiated by President Obama have caused this economic activity you wish to attribute to him. Many of us believe that the American economy is struggling along, progressing mildly, despite the man in the Oval Office, not because of him. But by all means tell us the initiatives Obama has put in action since he was reelected that have changed the economy for the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom