Nov 13 - Paul Ryan "I lost because of the ‘URBAN’ Vote"

most viewed right now
 127
Video inside Breaking News: Everyday Struggle W Joe Budden & Akademiks Won't Be Back..
36 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 71
Article inside Details in Child Sex Complaint Against Rapper 6ix9ine Contradict His ..
234 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 70
NBA LeBron James Covered His Mouth While Talking To Lonzo Ball After The Game ..
58 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 67
audio inside Jeezy - Pressure (Official Album Anticipation/Discussion Thread) 12/15
248 comments
@hiphop

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '05        #61
bobbysteels18 663 heat pts663
space
space
space
$7,602 | Props total: 2509 2509
And for people saying america is done because Obama is pres are wrong. There have been plenty elections like this were they put the rich against the poor or the poor against the rich. And the years when the government bailed out the banks and car makers and banks failed and the recession hit sh*t this stuff as been happen since america was founded. Do a history check about the last 200 years and you see how many times history repeats it self.
 5 years ago '12        #62
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$2,876 | Props total: 1654 1654
 Kadillac87 said:
3) How did Obama inspire people? He gave them hope. He gave them hope that you can succeed, no matter your background or race. If you haven't noticed, a lot of minorities feel disenfranchised by the current system. They feel nobody cares about their problems so there's no use in voting. If you weren't white or rich, your problems were not a cause for concern.
You're a smart guy, but you're full of sh*t here, and I think you know it. It's blatantly obvious, virtually incontrovertible - and most of Boxden, if honest, would admit the same - that African Americans who've never cared before were inspired to get out and vote for Barack Obama by the colour of his skin, above all else. Now, you could argue that his climb, as a 'black' man, up the political ladder in and of itself brings hope and enfranchises groups who have been historically marginalised and disillusioned - but whatever the rationale, it'd still have been a vote based on a superficial characteristic - skin.

Here is a map of deviations in voting between the Republican and Democratic party between 2008 and 2012. In other words, red arrows are areas where the Republican party did better in 2012 when compared with their performance in 2008, and blue arrows are areas where the Democrats accrued more votes in the four year comparison. The longer the arrows, the bigger the swing:


[pic - click to view]




..


Here is a map of the African-American geographic population density based on the 2000 census.


[pic - click to view]




As you can see, there is an evident correlation between increasingly favourable voting figures for Democrats and African-American population density.
Honestly though, the data is completely unnecessary. It is human nature to gravitate towards those who share one's characteristics, for it's common physiological features - intellectual, physical and emotional - that help us empathise with our common man. I don't understand why you're deterred by the prospect of confronting the universality of discrimination. We all experience the emotions of racism; not least of all those of us who have fallen victim to it.
It is naive to believe that such intrinsic human behaviour doesn't carry weight and influence proceedings during an election.

Anyway, irrespective of how you perceive that data, your vain attempts to obscure any and all notion of racial bias that works in favour of Obama have inadvertently reinforced Ryan's statement - the same one that drew so much vitriol and hatred earlier on in the thread :

“I think the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race.”
Whether it was because of the colour of his skin, the inspiration of his message, the white vote, the female vote, the Hispanic vote, or the urban vote; the unusually high voter turn out amongst those who hold a favourable predisposition towards the incumbents was a significant factor. This was about an apparently 'surprising' (according to Ryan) shift in prominent voter demographics, but a shift nonetheless.

The fact that his analysis has been objected vehemently in this thread is, ironically, evidence in support of the point he was making. American politics exists in a climate of clouded bias and fortified partisanship; where we only hear what we want to hear, when we want to hear it. Not the only factor, but the dominant factor over election results is the size of each prejudiced partisan base and their willingness to vote; and on Boxden, the bias is overwhelmingly in favour of liberal ideology - hence, Ryan gets vilified, even when he speaks reason.
It's highly probably that the Democrats won primarily because, this time, more of those typical to Boxden voted than ever before.


Last edited by noverum; 11-14-2012 at 01:02 AM..
 5 years ago '05        #63
bobbysteels18 663 heat pts663
space
space
space
$7,602 | Props total: 2509 2509
 Got Cheeve? said:
Because of Bin Laden? C'mon my dude, you can't air yourself out like that. At least say you voted for Obama because of the 47% thing. That's at least a somewhat respectable reason. But k!lling Bin Laden? That's so trivial when it comes to an election. I guess if you believe the whole terrorists are America's biggest threat thing. But when I talk with most people I respect, we all agree domestic policies are the biggest threat to America, our economy, our outsourcing of jobs, etc. Honestly too, one of the biggest threats to America is Fear itself. This country is scared sh*tless.

I can't stand that Michael Moore f*ggot for anything, but his Bowling for Columbine movie nails it with how scared America is. Be it perpetuated by the media or whatever, this country is always scared of something (terrorists, Russians, the Chinese, Iran, N. Korea, whatever), each other, anything. People always point to the gun deaths in America and say, "Well America allows you to have a bunch of guns", but the movie debunks that by showing Canada has just as many guns as we do and an astronomically amount of lower gun deaths. That's because they're not scared sh*tless of everything there. f!ghts don't always end in gun shots. That's a huge problem with America. Maybe that's education, maybe that's media, maybe that's the prison system, who knows but it's a huge fu*king problem.

I voted for him for other reasons Mit wanted to have a 5 tillion dollar tax cut come on how was he gonna pay for that. Bush had a tax cut and we are still paying for it the Rep's say tax cuts help the economy but taxes are as low as they ever been but is it helping the economy and our outsourcing of jobs is gonna happen no matter who the pres is. Also I think the rich should pay there fair share. Domestic policies are important. The national debt is important. Global warming I don't think is real and i think we should drill for more oil here and build that pipeline.
 5 years ago '11        #64
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 noverum said:
You're a smart guy, but you're full of sh*t here, and I think you know it. It's blatantly obvious, virtually incontrovertible - and most of Boxden, if honest, would admit the same - that African Americans who've never cared before were inspired to get out and vote for Barack Obama by the colour of his skin, above all else. Now, you could argue that his climb, as a 'black' man, up the political ladder in and of itself brings hope and enfranchises groups who have been historically marginalised and disillusioned - but whatever the rationale, it'd still have been a vote based on a superficial characteristic - skin.

Here is a map of deviations in voting between the Republican and Democratic party between 2008 and 2012. In other words, red arrows are areas where the Republican party did better in 2012 when compared with their performance in 2008, and blue arrows are areas where the Democrats accrued more votes in the four year comparison. The longer the arrows, the bigger the swing:


[pic - click to view]




..


Here is a map of the African-American geographic population density based on the 2000 census.


[pic - click to view]




As you can see, there is an evident correlation between increasingly favourable voting figures for Democrats and African-American population density.
Honestly though, the data is completely unnecessary. It is human nature to gravitate towards those who share one's characteristics, for it's common physiological features - intellectual, physical and emotional - that help us empathise with our common man. I don't understand why you're deterred by the prospect of confronting the universality of discrimination. We all experience the emotions of racism; not least of all those of us who have fallen victim to it.
It is naive to believe that such intrinsic human behaviour doesn't carry weight and influence proceedings during an election.

Anyway, irrespective of how you perceive that data, your vain attempts to obscure any and all notion of racial bias that works in favour of Obama has inadvertently reinforced Ryan's statement - the same one that drew so much vitriol and hatred earlier on in the thread :



Whether it was because of the colour of his skin, the inspiration of his message, the white vote, the female vote, the Hispanic vote, or the urban vote; the unusually high voter turn out amongst those who hold a favourable predisposition towards the incumbents was a significant factor. This was about an apparently 'surprising' (according to Ryan) shift in prominent voter demographics, but a shift nonetheless.

The fact that his analysis has been objected vehemently in this thread is, ironically, evidence in support of the point he was making. American politics exists in a climate of clouded bias and fortified partisanship; where we only hear what we want to hear, when we want to hear it. Not the only factor, but the dominant factor over election results is the size of each prejudiced partisan base and their willingness to vote; and on Boxden, the bias is overwhelmingly in favour of liberal ideology - hence, Ryan gets vilified, even when he speaks reason.
It's highly probably that the Democrats won primarily because, this time, more of those typical to Boxden voted than ever before.
I never said his race wasn't a factor in INSPIRING people to vote. I said black people vote DEMOCRATIC, no matter the race. You are trying to show black people voted for Obama because of his race as if his party doesn't overwhelmingly get the black vote. When was the last time the black vote didn't go to the democratic nominee in high margins? Your map shows a lot of black people live in red states. We already knew that. That's one of the reason why black turnout was low in years prior.

Now if you're trying to make the case that turnout was great among black people because of his race, then you would be correct. Turnout was great among all of the demographics who don't usually vote (blacks, hispanics, youth, etc). As I stated before, seeing a black man at the top gives hope for many people who felt disenfranchised by the system. It shows you don't have to be old, white, and rich to succeed.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 11-14-2012 at 01:18 AM..
 11-14-2012, 01:13 AM         #65
Mariah Carey 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 11-14-2012, 01:21 AM         #66
Mariah Carey 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 5 years ago '10        #67
ColeWorld 42 heat pts42
space
avatar space
space
$10,622 | Props total: 1617 1617
 NO RELIGION said:
Time for Wisconsin to secede from the union like Texas.
GTFOH that n*gga does not speak for Wisconsin...he has that creeper swag we do not fu*k with him...he has no influence in Milwaukee.
 11-14-2012, 01:24 AM         #68
Mariah Carey 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 5 years ago '12        #69
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$2,876 | Props total: 1654 1654
 Kadillac87 said:
I never said his race wasn't a factor in INSPIRING people to vote. I said black people vote DEMOCRATIC, no matter the race. You are trying to show black people voted for Obama because of his race as if his party doesn't overwhelmingly get the black vote. When was the last time the black vote didn't go to the democratic nominee in high margins? Your map shows a lot of black people live in red states. We already knew that. That's one of the reason why black turnout was low in years prior.
That graph is only a comparison of two elections, and my objective was never to disprove the data you had posted, but to prove what you write below.

Now if you're trying to make the case that turnout was great among black people because of his race, then you would be correct.
And what you write in the quote below this paragraph is exactly what Ryan was arguing and what he attributed the Republican defeat to, but his statement was taken out of context because of the word 'urban'. He never mentioned urban areas exclusively, only that he believed that they had a particular significance.

Turnout was great among all of the demographics who don't usually vote (blacks, hispanics, youth, etc).


Last edited by noverum; 11-14-2012 at 01:30 AM..
 5 years ago '11        #70
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 noverum said:
That graph is only a comparison, and my objective was never to disprove the data you had posted, but to prove what you write below.



And what you write below this paragraph is exactly what Ryan was arguing and what he attributed the Republican defeat to, but his statement was taken out of context because of the word 'urban'. He never mentioned urban areas exclusively, only that he believed that they had a particular significance.
The problem with Ryan's statement is only the black and latino vote are the ones that don't turnout in Urban areas. So he's saying he lost, not because of the republican policy of alienating everybody but white males, but because black people and latinos voted.

It's a slick way of saying if they didn't have a black guy, they wouldn't have won because nobody agrees with their policies. It implies that those who voted for Obama in urban areas, minorities, are ignorant of policy and were just in awe with the color of his skin. This is just not true. A lot of people don't agree with forcing women to bear a child in the case of r*pe. A lot of people don't agree with gathering all the illegal immigrants and just kicking them out. A lot of people don't agree cutting taxes on the wealthy and raising taxing on the middle class. A lot of people don't agree with the rising cost of education and the burden of student loans. Race wasn't the only thing that turned people away from the GOP.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 11-14-2012 at 01:41 AM..
 5 years ago '05        #71
bobbysteels18 663 heat pts663
space
space
space
$7,602 | Props total: 2509 2509
 Kadillac87 said:
The problem with Ryan's statement is only the black and latino vote are the ones that don't turnout in Urban areas. So he's saying he lost, not because of the republican policy of alienating everybody but white males, but because black people and latinos voted.

It's a slick way of saying if they didn't have a black guy, they wouldn't have won because nobody agrees with their policies. It implies that those who voted for Obama in urban areas, minorities, are ignorant of policy and were just in awe with the color of his skin. This is just not true. A lot of people don't agree with forcing women to bear a child in the case of r*pe. A lot of people don't agree with gathering all the illegal immigrants and just kicking them out. A lot of people don't agree cutting taxes on the wealthy and raising taxing on the middle class. A lot of people don't agree with the rising cost of education and the burden of student loans. Race wasn't the only thing that turned people away from the GOP.

I think most of everything what you said is why people turned away from the GOP. They pretty much fu*ked them self's with no vaseline. But i agree with gathering all the illegal immigrants and kicking them out
 5 years ago '11        #72
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 bobbysteels18 said:
I think most of everything what you said is why people turned away from the GOP. They pretty much fu*ked them self's with no vaseline. But i agree with gathering all the illegal immigrants and kicking them out
I agree with it too in some cases. I don't think people who grew up as Americans, even though their parents were illegal, should be kicked out because being American is all they know. People just hopping the fence all willy nilly though, kick them out.
 5 years ago '12        #73
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$2,876 | Props total: 1654 1654
 Kadillac87 said:
The problem with Ryan's statement is only the black and latino vote are the ones that don't turnout in Urban areas. So he's saying he lost, not because of the republican policy of alienating everybody but white males, but because black people and latinos voted.

It's a slick way of saying if they didn't have a black guy, they wouldn't have won because nobody agrees with their policies. It implies that those who voted for Obama in urban areas, minorities, are ignorant of policy and were just in awe with the color of his skin. This is just not true. A lot of people don't agree with forcing women to bear a child in the case of r*pe. A lot of people don't agree with gathering all the illegal immigrants and just kicking them out. A lot of people don't agree cutting taxes on the wealthy and raising taxing on the middle class. A lot of people don't agree with the rising cost of education and the burden of student loans. Race wasn't the only thing that turned people away from the GOP.
As I argued in my first post, it's an blunt acknowledgement of the discriminatory partisan nature of American politics and its relationship with demographics; social, racial and s3xual. For every Republican policy that you throw under the bus, there is a Democratic policy that somebody else would throw under the bus too. For every person who holds liberal views, there is another person who holds conservative ones.
Bias and narrow-mindedness has a foothold on American politics; Ryan's analysis is only a reflection of that. Altering Republican policy may have helped them win the election; but it may have just as well crumbled the central structure of their support base.

You would prefer that he consider unpopular policy as the root cause, and for the Republicans to make an effort to adhere to your agenda, I understand that. No doubt, he would much rather put more weight on the influence of partiality in explaining the Republican's failure during this last election. Both positions have merit; neither is solely responsible, nor is either entirely incorrect.


Last edited by noverum; 11-14-2012 at 02:09 AM..
 5 years ago '10        #74
shadydre85 34 heat pts34
space
avatar space
space
$9,433 | Props total: 2391 2391
 bigbarcelona said:
Really??? The Urban vote???? How about you lose the election because the GOP in the end was out of the two the worse when it comes to moving forward with this country. Also, nobody including the old wanted that bullsh*t a.ss Medicare voucher program that he had in mind. Plus... Paul Ryan became a joke after Joe Biden ether his a.ss on the debate.

In the end... it wasn't just the "Urban" vote that put Obama back in office... it was white, hispanic, asians, gays, the old and everyone in between that in the end didn't agree with the vision that the republican party had to offer. Nobody wants to support two douchebags that constantly look down on people because of their economic background... and we sure as hell didn't wanted some prick that believes that no one deserves to be help. That's why he lost and that's why they continue to lose until they get it through their heads that America is ready and will continue to move forward.

It was funny how they laugh at Newt Gingrich because he told them to reach to these groups in order to win and they didn't listen. In the end they were out of touch with America.
 5 years ago '06        #75
DominicanLou 17 heat pts17
space
avatar space
space
$7,369 | Props total: 4641 4641
If Noverum ever teaches an online class I'm signing up.
 5 years ago '05        #76
bobbysteels18 663 heat pts663
space
space
space
$7,602 | Props total: 2509 2509
The two main parties are unlike, yet so very similar. Both of them are advocates of Big Government, just with different methods and angles. While Republicans savored the Iraq conflict, Democrats savor the war in Afghanistan. While Republicans offer corporatism to Big Oil, the Democrats extend the same to wind and solar. While Democrats favor social welfare, Republicans admire corporate welfare.
 5 years ago '11        #77
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 noverum said:
As I argued in my first post, it's an blunt acknowledgement of the discriminatory partisan nature of American politics and its relationship with demographics; social, racial and s3xual. For every Republican policy that you throw under the bus, there is a Democratic policy that somebody else would throw under the bus too. For every person who holds liberal views, there is another person who holds conservative ones.
Bias and narrow-mindedness has a foothold on American politics; Ryan's analysis is only a reflection of that. Altering Republican policy may have helped them win the election; but it may have just as well crumbled the central structure of their support base.

You would prefer that he consider unpopular policy as the root cause, and for the Republicans to make an effort to adhere to your agenda, I understand that. No doubt, he would much rather put more weight on the influence of partiality in explaining the Republican's failure during this last election. Both positions have merit; neither is solely responsible, nor is either entirely incorrect.
I would have preferred if he came to the reality that everybody else already know. The GOP moved so far right that they can only appeal to a limited number of people. There are always going to be liberal views and conservative views. The majority of people don't hold strictly liberal views and the majority of people don't hold strictly conservative views. A lot of the electorate is toward the middle. When you go the extreme on either end, you lose the people in the middle. That's what happened.

I don't agree with abortion but I'm not going to argue the legality of r*pe to prove my point. That's an extreme position. They lost the women vote on their extreme position on r*pe. They lost the Latino vote on their extreme position on immigration. They never was going to the black vote, especially with an black person running. All the other voting demographics were in play, but they couldn't appeal to them because they took extreme positions that alienated those voting blocs.

An even remotely moderate GOP would have won the election.
 5 years ago '10        #78
shadydre85 34 heat pts34
space
avatar space
space
$9,433 | Props total: 2391 2391
Im black and didnt vote for him because he is black I vote democratic all the time wether white black or hispanic but im sure obama being half black helped him win the vote with minoritys. It was the icing on the cake for him but who cares republicans need to take there L and shut up.
 5 years ago '12        #79
noverum 
space
avatar space
space
$2,876 | Props total: 1654 1654
Edit : Sorry about the very long post. At some point I got lost in it.

 Kadillac87 said:
I would have preferred if he came to the reality that everybody else already know. The GOP moved so far right that they can only appeal to a limited number of people. There are always going to be liberal views and conservative views. The majority of people don't hold strictly liberal views and the majority of people don't hold strictly conservative views. A lot of the electorate is toward the middle. When you go the extreme on either end, you lose the people in the middle. That's what happened.

I don't agree with abortion but I'm not going to argue the legality of r*pe to prove my point. That's an extreme position. They lost the women vote on their extreme position on r*pe. They lost the Latino vote on their extreme position on immigration. They never was going to the black vote, especially with an black person running. All the other voting demographics were in play, but they couldn't appeal to them because they took extreme positions that alienated those voting blocs.

An even remotely moderate GOP would have won the election.



It has to be recognised that the Republicans didn't have all the chess pieces fall their way this last election. It's only been four years since George Bush's mediocre two-term presidency ended. On top of that, incumbents have a great record of consolidating their position, so as vulnerable as Obama's presidency may have appeared, he had history on his side. If the Republicans ever did have a chance of winning this election, that possibility was an indictment of the Democrat's reign; but statistically, it's no shock that he pulled through in the end.


You keep bringing up policies, but Republicans have always campaigned in support of views that most 'moderates' would consider extreme; that is a manifestation of the philosophies that they inherit. The very intuition born from conservative philosophy is to hold on to the ideas that have proven successful before and to resist those that threaten to destabilise their steady platform. That often results in the party attempting to disseminate ideology that may appear outdated to other members of a society that keeps moving forward - and aging ideas may even appear 'extreme' as they gets left behind by all but the most vehement party loyalists. It's important to note, however, that such behaviour has never stalled the party's political momentum for very long in the past.
The critical question is whether a growing and evolving voting demographic is going to force the Republicans to remodel some ideology and abandon others - principles that have served them well for decades / centuries - or whether they'll be able to maintain tradition and be carried by the tide into prominence and power in time, as they've always done. It is certainly a challenge that they've not had to face on such a scale before.

Establishing a clearer picture of the effects of all influential variables won't be possible until after the next election. Despite your insistence on ideological positions being the cause, as far as I'm concerned, it's simply not possible to deduce at this point in time how much of an influence the remnants of the 'Yes We Can' election campaign had on public consciousness, how much of an effect the ever-changing voting demographic has had on the outcome, how much of the ideas that have served Republicans before are beginning to fail them, and how many of their relatively new solutions to new challenges have been rejected by the public.

It's entirely plausible that if the Republicans were to run an identical election to that which they just ran in four years time, they would end up winning. The Democrats would be reaching the end of an 8 year term under a single leader, and the change in historic odds could supplement a Republican campaign and swing all the necessary votes required for a conservative victory in their favour. If that were to happen, then they would be able to both retain their 'extreme' views and have the means to enforce them.

It's also possible that you're right, and that the total sum of their policies is a negative one, that too many principles are outdated, extreme and generally incompatible with modern America. Worse, if you compound that with Paul Ryan's deduction of a growing anti-Republican contingent amongst voters, then you'd have an archaic ideology met by a growingly intolerant voting public. In which case, they would have no choice but to change, or forever be cast aside by a liberally-orientated population.

The point is, it's simply too early to tell. You have to understand that what may appear as ignorance to Democrats translates as wisdom to many Republicans. There are polarising philosophies at work.
To many Democrats, Republicans are intolerant, lethargic dinosaurs, obstacles to collective human endeavour - slow to adapt, lagging in their progression - their values that of bigotry, harmful to the rights of minorities and inhibitive to the evolution of civilisation.
To Republicans, Democrats are like pretentious children with ADHD in the pages of a national history spanning centuries; rash to latch onto untested ideas at the expense of the safety of nationalistic principles, their moral-elitism bigoted and a threat to traditional wisdom, their keenness for the future a lack of respect for a proud history.

If you want to know why people like Paul Ryan refuse to yield to the suggestion that core principles must change in order for the party to succeed, it's because they trust their conservative nature; they respect the wisdom of their forefathers, and they will wait until all other theories are exhausted before making a transition.

You may not relate to their mentality, but I believe that liberals need conservatives and their backwards mentality just as much as conservatives need liberals and their impulsive ways. A society overrun by liberals is a dangerously volatile one; just as a society overrun by conservatives stagnates to oblivion.


Last edited by noverum; 11-14-2012 at 05:31 AM..
 5 years ago '12        #80
Melle 52 heat pts52
space
avatar space
space
$3,919 | Props total: 2630 2630
once again.... republicans coming to the fact that the United States of America does not just consist of an Upper Class


Last edited by Melle; 01-04-2013 at 08:55 AM..
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 35
Video inside Who is she!!
27 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 25
Video inside T-Mobile about to save us from Comcast, Time Warner & AT&T
53 comments
1 day ago
@tech
most viewed right now
 22
Video inside Throwback: Teen Gangbangers On Jenny Jones Show
62 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 20
Image(s) inside Learn the difference between a DR. Wife and a "Boxden Simp Thot"!
207 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 20
Image(s) inside Ugly niggas watch ya step
83 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 14
Article inside Salma Hayek claims Harvey Weinstein threatened 'I will kill you, don'..
149 comments
1 day ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 12
NFL Robert Griffin III, sets the record straight.
88 comments
1 day ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 10
Image(s) inside The Backshots would be crazy
29 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy