So as I said, MLK all over again. MLK was detested by vast majority of white voters when he was alive. MLK was hated by them and he was "peaceful", they voted in racist policies and politicians as a response to him addressing racism.
And much like then we've had abundance of videos and photos of police dehumanizing black people, but a riot is what made them vote racist? lol okay.
I mean, let's be clear. Kaepernick is being blacklisted right now for engaging in a totally silent nonviolent protest that affects nobody, and over half of all Americans think he was wrong to do it.
It's literally impossible to conceive of a protest against white supremacy that Americans will support. Americans hate anybody doing absolutely anything to bring the topic up. It would require them to accept that it exists.
Kind of awesome how many people in this thread went straight to "yeah racism is really bad and all but ultimately we want to win elections so maybe let's not talk about it."
Once again, we already did that Democratic Party and it was terrible for people of color. But the guy who did it is still pretty popular, so, I guess, America.
Jesus I hope that's not how my earlier post came across. It wasn't my intent if so.
The guy who responded to me has some pretty good points but I think he's missing some really in your face facts about the amount of bigotry in this country. My point was only that on an institutional level we can't affect much change without our elected officials (on City, State and National levels) being of like mind to us and and how are we going to go about getting them elected to these positions.
Obviously racism is alive and kicking in this country, and anyone who thought otherwise was being willfully ignorant, but I guess what I'm asking is did we really lose so many spots the last 6 years because the people running against us were no longer hidden about their racism? If so than why did the same overt talk torpedo so many Republican candidates in years past but not this time? What's changed?
See if only Hillary had campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin we could have abolished racism.
Hillary, you had one job!
I'd be happy for you to tell me how what I said was wrong. I'm very open to it.
I agree with you that there is a section of people, even a significant section of people, who would never be open to to the civil rights movement of BLM. I agree with you that much of it was spin, but it was spin that reached people to a broader degree than it would have otherwise. You even say that folks play on fear, and that's what alt-right and racist groups [synonymous crossover not disregarded] did. They played on the fears caused by the riots.
Riots cause fear. The news crews in the footage from different events were afraid. The business owners whose businesses destroyed, despite them having nothing to do with the it were very afraid, and very upset.
Let's not forget the other part, where black citizens are afraid of police because of the countless examples of the unlawful assaults that have happened to them, and frankly even the CHANCE that they might be suspected of something they have nothing to do with; that we can point out over and over and over.
I think it was racism but it's also hard to ignore that, for some people, this country is changing too fast for them. On the other side you have people who are convinced the country isn't changing fast enough and bought into the "they're all the same" rhetoric and voted for a guy who wasn't a politician. In both situations the subject was divorced from reality. Trump gave people tons of bogeymen to point at for their problems and they ran with it because people always want simple solutions to complex issues.Emotion? We saw the rallies and we know what Trump's platform was. You would have to be a fucking idiot to believe it was anything other than racism.
"We should have let Sherman finish the job" --Me
i thought he finished his job. What did you want him to finish?
Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism
Great conclusion of the article... however it seems like out-of-touch Democrats are desperate to blame their loss on everything else but the SHIT ECONOMY that Obama left behind for a good 70% of Americans. Because of a SHIT economy, racial tensions increased against illegal immigrant workers, and because of a SHIT economy, millions and millions of voters decided to stay home when the "reasonable" choice promised more of the same economic shittiness.
This study has NOTHING to do with what motivated Trump voters the most... just the degrees of racism vs authoritarianism tendencies in the voters. For example, Republican voters in 2012 had MORE racist views than Republican voters in 2016. How does that fit in the GAF hive mind that Trump won because white people hate black people? It all seems like a grand excuse for Democrats and the liberal media to NOT look at their own stench and errors in handling the last 8 years.
I am willing to bet that a BLACK genuine-sounding outsider promising jobs would have beaten Trump easily. A white out-of-touch Prima Donna pandering to corporate donors in a time half of Americans don't have enough in the bank to replace their car tires was bound to lose.
Great conclusion of the article... however it seems like out-of-touch Democrats are desperate to blame their loss on everything else but the SHIT ECONOMY that Obama left behind for a good 70% of Americans. Because of a SHIT economy, racial tensions increased against illegal immigrant workers, and because of a SHIT economy, millions and millions of voters decided to stay home when the "reasonable" choice promised more of the same economic shittiness.
This study has NOTHING to do with what motivated Trump voters the most... just the degrees of racism vs authoritarianism tendencies in the voters. For example, Republican voters in 2012 had MORE racist views than Republican voters in 2016. How does that fit in the GAF hive mind that Trump won because white people hate black people? It all seems like a grand excuse for Democrats and the liberal media to NOT look at their own stench and errors in handling the last 8 years.
I am willing to bet that a BLACK genuine-sounding outsider promising jobs would have beaten Trump easily. A white out-of-touch Prima Donna pandering to corporate donors in a time half of Americans don't have enough in the bank to replace their car tires was bound to lose.
Now the real question, does Bernie understand this.
You are full of shit.
Hillary was promising training for new jobs, thing is people dont want new jobs. They want their old jobs back.
Trump was selling them a pipe dream, that he could force manufacturers to bring jobs back form overseas, re-open coal mines, and give people back the life they had from 20 years ago.
Hillary made the mistake of thinking people were intelligent enough to realize that as long as you can pay someone 15 cents an hour overseas that job isnt coming back to the US so we need to start training for jobs we can be competitive on here. Unfortunately for her the 50 year former steel worker doesnt want to train on a new job, he wants to go back to producing steel.
Trump showed up and spouted off all the idiotic impossible dreams/policies these people have been murmuring to each other for years. They bought it hook, line, and sinker and unfortunately we are stuck with this clown for 4 years.
Tell me... what was Hillary or Obama's track record for new jobs and new training outside of the liberal metros? why would they believe her in 2016, when the middle class ended worse off under Obama? do you see now why she would fail to connect with so many? the economy was SHIT under Obama for a large large portion of the country, but many Democrats and the media lived (and continue to live) in their well-off metro bubbles.
Guess what... a new pipe dream was better for many than an old pipedream sold by Obama and Clinton: if we keep favoring corporations, eventually the wealth will trickle down. The Democrats had very very little to show for in terms of support for the middle class and the lower class. A lot of progress on social issues, but those unfortunately don't put food on the table.
If the former steel worker was ignored when it comes to job training opportunities for 8 years under Obama, why would he think Hillary would do better?
My entire point always in this debate is that while everyone here is busy pointing fingers at the 100% racist fringe in the country that would of course vote for Trump (maybe 35% of voters out there), my point is that when wealth/income inequality reaches extremes, more and more people fall for new "impossible dreams/policies" versus the tired old shit that wasn't working (Obama and Clinton).
Bernie understands that the economy was and still is the number one issue uniting ALL Americans.
A lot of minorities like myself are less concerned about the economy when our place in society is under constant threat by a bunch of belligerent bigots. Talk about the economy but don't act like it's the end all and be all for everyone.
That response requires you answering why republicans would reduce budgets and kill programs designed to help their own constituents when it came to stuff like infrastructure and green energy jobs. Remember its congress that actually sets budgets and pays for programs. I mean in the recent past we had them trying their damndest to remove healthcare from their constituents and the only reason they werent successful is because one faction of their party didnt think the cuts were deep enough!
Wow you are attributing trickle down economics to democrats now. Good lord. If you look at what Obamacare does its basically wealth redistribution hidden as best as he could.
A lot of minorities like myself are less concerned about the economy when our place in society is under constant threat by a bunch of belligerent bigots. Talk about the economy but don't act like it's the end all and be all for everyone.
Now the real question, does Bernie understand this.
The economy is not the end-all-be-all topic, but racism can't be treated as the end-all-be-all explanation for why Democrats lost in 2016. Democrats like it that way, because it absolves them of anything they did wrong in the lead-up to the election. They can forever blame it on racists coming out in droves behind Trump, while ignoring the millions of Democrats and dozens of millions of independents that did not particularly care for the shit show of options presented to them (including Clinton's promise to stay the course in what was objectively the #1 issue on most voters' minds: the economy).
With all I've read these past few months I just get the impression people become upset when focus is put on the racial aspect of people's swayed to vote for Trump.I don't know what Democratic party you're looking at but the one I've been observing has been overhauling its leadership and figuring out what the hell went wrong with the 2016 election.
Please show me definitive proof that both Democrat voters and the DNC are hiding behind "racism" so as to actively avoid talking about Clinton's campaign shortcomings. Because that's the narrative I see constantly being pushed but it doesn't match up to reality.
The economy is not the end-all-be-all topic, but racism can't be treated as the end-all-be-all explanation for why Democrats lost in 2016. Democrats like it that way, because it absolves them of anything they did wrong in the lead-up to the election. They can forever blame it on racists coming out in droves behind Trump, while ignoring the millions of Democrats and dozens of millions of independents that did not particularly care for the shit show of options presented to them (including Clinton's promise to stay the course in what was objectively the #1 issue on most voters' minds: the economy).
I don't know what Democratic party you're looking at but the one I've been observing has been overhauling its leadership and figuring out what the hell went wrong with the 2016 election.
Please show me definitive proof that both Democrat voters and the DNC are hiding behind "racism" so as to actively avoid talking about Clinton's campaign shortcomings. Because that's the narrative I see constantly being pushed but it doesn't match up to reality.
It seems like the DNC remains just as two-faced as it was under Hillary. They plant a Clinton loyalist with a nice superficial "progressive" label (the pro-Wall Street loyal Tom Perez), and only support local special elections when it is a loyal corporatist running (like Ossoff in GA). Bernie is trying hard to bring people together, and it revolves around the economic injustice affecting people across all races.
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
It seems like the DNC remains just as two-faced as it was under Hillary. They plant a Clinton loyalist with a nice superficial "progressive" label (the pro-Wall Street loyal Tom Perez), and only support local special elections when it is a loyal corporatist running (like Ossoff in GA). Bernie is trying hard to bring people together, and it revolves around the economic injustice affecting people across all races.
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
I don't know why people keep talking like we're a forum of Democratic strategists.
It seems like the DNC remains just as two-faced as it was under Hillary. They plant a Clinton loyalist with a nice superficial "progressive" label (the pro-Wall Street loyal Tom Perez), and only support local special elections when it is a loyal corporatist running (like Ossoff in GA). Bernie is trying hard to bring people together, and it revolves around the economic injustice affecting people across all races. More importantly, aside from climate change, the instability wrought by income/wealth inequality is one of the main destroyers of past civilizations. We are reaching that boiling point across the world, with the US being the mecca for promoting unchecked pursuit of self-interest to the detriment of the whole.
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
To go a bit further on it, I think the Ferguson riots caused fear. It showed damage to establishments, and damage to order. There is plenty of footage showing hatred and racism towards white journalists, police and cameramen, and there was hatred and accusations of race betrayal for black journalists, police, and cameramen. That stuff spread, and people saw it.
None of that was good for the BLM cause, and none of that was good for "race relations," and all of that was on film. That got circulated by alt-right people hardcore.
What is it about people with "storm" in their usernamesThere's so much racism here, I'm overawed.
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
It seems like the DNC remains just as two-faced as it was under Hillary. They plant a Clinton loyalist with a nice superficial "progressive" label (the pro-Wall Street loyal Tom Perez), and only support local special elections when it is a loyal corporatist running (like Ossoff in GA). Bernie is trying hard to bring people together, and it revolves around the economic injustice affecting people across all races. More importantly, aside from climate change, the instability wrought by income/wealth inequality is one of the main destroyers of past civilizations. We are reaching that boiling point across the world, with the US being the mecca for promoting unchecked pursuit of self-interest to the detriment of the whole.
Isn't that the narrative that has stuck for 90% of GAF posters in these kinds of threads?
That's actually wrongThe abortion argument is based on two separate moral standards. No one is wrong, and no one is right on it.
There's so much racism here, I'm overawed.
So the goalposts have been moved from "it's economic anxiety" to "we should pretend it's economic anxiety to avoid hurting their feelings"? It's not like the next Democratic presidential nominee is going to stand up there and finger wag at Trump voters or say that he/she doesn't want their votes, but we should be honest with each other about what happened here.I will say that Bernie understands, but also that he understands yelling racist at them is not helping.
i thought he finished his job. What did you want him to finish?
There were a lot of Confederates and their poor, White boot-lickers that needed to see a noose around their necks. That was a political decision that reverberates even today.
If the Civil War had been fought a-hundred years later, I'd like to believe we would have been more concerned with a de-Bubbafication of the Confederate states, rather than leaving the job half done after the Northern merchants rid themselves of competition with large slave-labor industries.
What is it about people with "storm" in their usernames
So the goalposts have been moved from "it's economic anxiety" to "we should pretend it's economic anxiety to avoid hurting their feelings"? It's not like the next Democratic presidential nominee is going to stand up there and finger wag at Trump voters or say that he/she doesn't want their votes, but we should be honest with each other about what happened here.
"If you don't win, you can't make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you've just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose."
He added, "I don't go to moral victory speeches. I can't stand them. I've never lost an election. It's about winning, because if you win you then have the power to go do what has to get done.
Take this from Rahm Emanuel.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...s-advice-0207-chicago-inc-20170206-story.html
Rahm isn't anyone to be talking, let alone telling other Democrats how to act.
That doesn't mean his quote is wrong. In medicine we learn how to read EKGs from a book of a convicted pedophile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Dubin
I definitely agree about a need for some degree of electoral pragmatism (which is part of the reason I voted for Hillary in the primary), but I don't see how it relates to diagnosing the problem. Racial resentment was the core of Trump's appeal. I think Democrats should be careful about how they talk about this if/when it comes up, because of course you don't want to alienate voters if you can avoid it, but being openly hostile to this obvious fact, as Bernie has been, is a bad look. It's also counterproductive: if you're dishonest about what Trump's appeal was, if you don't understand the cause of what happened, you can't build a good strategy to win in the future.Yeah again it's change how the message is delivered without changing the context.
I've used the phrase in the past "you can affect change if you lose, but you can't enact change unless you win".
This is why it ties into President Obama when one of his campaign positions was "marriage is between a man and a woman", which is apathetic at best to a civil rights cause, but it doesn't completely ostracize people who disagree. He won, and he got to sign an executive order to protect transgender people. If we continually lose, and Justices are placed on that Supreme Court that take radical opinions, then it just pushes advancements for civil rights back.
Today, over 50% of Republicans are in support of gay marriage. That's a lot of progress.
A lot of people want to basically make purity tests on everything right now as a liberal tea party response, which I just think is a set up to continually erase gains over and over. If people go out and just point to Trump voters and say "Trump voters are racist", then how is that going to be a welcoming push to get them to vote for Democratic candidates, or towards supporting causes that advance civil rights? It doesn't. That's why the purity tests are a mistake, and the backlash towards Trump voters is a terrible decision.
Again, we have a variety of people from Senator Sanders to Van Jones going out, talking with Trump voters, listening to them, and engaging them.
Take this from Rahm Emanuel.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...s-advice-0207-chicago-inc-20170206-story.html
Thanks for your constructive reply!