Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Racism in Trump's America


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

It's incredible.   White people claiming THEY have "superiority", black people claiming THEY do, and "Christians"( behaving  like anything except "Christians")  claiming it's THEM that have "superiority", and Muslims joining that fray too.  EVERYONE claiming THEIR superiority except Jews, who still( after a dozen millennia)  get persecuted and slaughtered for minding their own business.   And now, a fight over who the REAL Jews are!  :rolleyes:  And where were THEY for the last 2,000 years?

What's frustrating is that on top of it all, they ALL still claim to be AMERICANS, although it seems they all lost track of what that really means.   

Sepiatone

Sadly tribal group-think is a strong feeling for most folks.      Only us secular half-breeds appear to really get this.

The only group I can't prevent being associated with are "males" and I really wish I could;        E.g. people assuming I must have a certain POV because I have a worm.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the Dem party the racist party?    

Like I said,  if the white Dem Presidential candidate doesn't select a person-of-color as the V.P.    Trump will win again.

Trump might still win because Dems-of-color may feel that the V.P. was just a token to appease them and sit out the election.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/democrats-2020-white-debate-stage/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So is the Dem party the racist party?    

Like I said,  if the white Dem Presidential candidate doesn't select a person-of-color as the V.P.    Trump will win again.

Trump might still win because Dems-of-color may feel that the V.P. was just a token to appease them and sit out the election.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/democrats-2020-white-debate-stage/index.html

I don't think the "color" of the Veep candidate is going to make a difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

I don't think the "color" of the Veep candidate is going to make a difference.

Please explain:   e.g.  that left-leaning people-of-color will have low voter turnout since the Dem candidate is white,  and thus having a person-of-color Veep is NOT going to make a difference?

If that is your POV,   that just makes it much more likely Trump will win re-election.

E.g. if people-of-color had come out and voted for Hillary at the same percentage they came out and voted for Obama,   Hillary would have one.

The likely white Dem candidate will need the same percentage as Obama,  if not more,  and that will be difficult since many left-learning people-of-color have been brainwashed by the Dem party and activist that candidates need to 'look like them".

E.g. this quote from the CNN article:

It is particularly disheartening to see that the folks we organize won't be able to watch the debate and see anyone who looks like them," said Quentin Savwoir, the political director of Make It Work Nevada, an advocacy group that organizes women of color. 

The only "bait" the Dem party has to offer to people-of-color is the Veep position.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Please explain:   e.g.  that left-leaning people-of-color will have low voter turnout since the Dem candidate is white,  and thus having a person-of-color Veep is NOT going to make a difference?

If that is your POV,   that just makes it much more likely Trump will win re-election.

E.g. if people-of-color had come out and voted for Hillary at the same percentage they came out and voted for Obama,   Hillary would have one.

The likely white Dem candidate will need the same percentage as Obama,  if not more,  and that will be difficult since many left-learning people-of-color have been brainwashed by the Dem party and activist that candidates need to 'look like them".

E.g. this quote from the CNN article:

It is particularly disheartening to see that the folks we organize won't be able to watch the debate and see anyone who looks like them," said Quentin Savwoir, the political director of Make It Work Nevada, an advocacy group that organizes women of color. 

The only "bait" the Dem party has to offer to people-of-color is the Veep position.   

 I don't think it will make any significant difference to the  "people-of-color" who the Veep candidate is.  The quote from CNN refers to the Dem debate for President, not Veep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So is the Dem party the racist party?    

 

Since STROM THURMOND and Ala. governor GEORGE WALLACE were democrats,(until '64 for Thurmond anyway), some might get that impression.  ;)

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Since STROM THURMOND and Ala. governor GEORGE WALLACE were democrats,(until '64 for Thurmond anyway), some might get that impression. ;)

Sepiatone

The racist in the Dem Party left it for the Republican Party about 1964.  Although there probably are some who are biased based on race, religion, etc.   The current Republican Party (since 1964) is the one based on racism.  Nixon, Reagan and Trump all had it as part of their campaigns.  Perhaps discretely and covertly, but still there none the less.

1964 was 55 years ago, 5 and a half decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

 I don't think it will make any significant difference to the  "people-of-color" who the Veep candidate is.  The quote from CNN refers to the Dem debate for President, not Veep.

Of course the CNN article was about debates for President.    I was using it as another example of identity politics going wild.

Anyhow,  I still don't see where you have a position \ prediction with regards to people-of-color voter turnout in 2020.

Since I'm an anyone-but-Trumper,   I hope that having a person-of-color Veep will increase people-of-color voter turnout (and if the Dem candidate is a male,  a women Veep would increase women turnout for the Dems).

 I know that historically the Veep hasn't made much of a difference (if any) so yea, any hope that it will,  may be misguided,   and Trump will win yet again.

(because the Dem white candidate needs people-of-color voter turnout similar to what Obama received).

PS:   gender also plays a role here.      White-male verses White-male favors the GOP.      Again,  the Dems would need record women turnout that votes Dem.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Of course the CNN article was about debates for President.    I was using it as another example of identity politics going wild.

Anyhow,  I still don't see where you have a position \ prediction with regards to people-of-color voter turnout in 2020.

Since I'm an anyone-but-Trumper,   I hope that having a person-of-color Veep will increase people-of-color voter turnout (and if the Dem candidate is a male,  a women Veep would increase women turnout for the Dems).

 I know that historically the Veep hasn't made much of a difference (if any) so yea, any hope that it will,  may be misguided,   and Trump will win yet again.

(because the Dem white candidate needs people-of-color voter turnout similar to what Obama received).

PS:   gender also plays a role here.      White-male verses White-male favors the GOP.      Again,  the Dems would need record women turnout that votes Dem.

 

 

 

I'm not quite an anyone but Trump, but close to it.  So if a person of color Veep helps, good.  I just don't see it rallying the troops.  Obama had a lot more than just color going for him in 2008.

My choice right now would be Klobuchar for pres., but I don't see that happening.  A pleasing compromise would be Biden for Pres and Klobuchar for Veep.

One reason why the Dems hate purging of voter roles is because too many blacks only show up to vote every 12 or so years.  I have personally observed that in elections where every vote does count.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I'm not quite an anyone but Trump, but close to it.  So if a person of color Veep helps, good.  I just don't see it rallying the troops.  Obama had a lot more than just color going for him in 2008.

My choice right now would be Klobuchar for pres., but I don't see that happening.  A pleasing compromise would be Biden for Pres and Klobuchar for Veep.

One reason why the Dems hate purging of voter roles is because too many blacks only show up to vote every 12 or so years.  I have personally observed that in elections where every vote does count.

My choice is also Klobuchar;    "moderate",   more experience than Mayor Pete (the other "moderate"),   and more likely to beat Trump since she isn't a white-male.

But I still say any Dem nominee should pick a person-of-color as the Veep.     It might not rally the troops but it might if that Veep nominee can energize left-leaning  voters that sat out in 2016.    Hey,  maybe I'm too focus on this,   but from what I have read the key to beating Trump is left-leaning voter turnout.    (because I believe Trump supporter voter turnout will be record-breaking high).

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

My choice is also Klobuchar;    "moderate",   more experience than Mayor Pete (the other "moderate"),   and more likely to beat Trump since she isn't a white-male.

But I still say any Dem nominee should pick a person-of-color as the Veep.     It might not rally the troops but it might if that Veep nominee can energize left-leaning  voters that sat out in 2016.    Hey,  maybe I'm too focus on this,   but from what I have read the key to beating Trump is left-leaning voter turnout.    (because I believe Trump supporter voter turnout will be record-breaking high).

   

Think we have discussed this before.  To me, the key is to get the moderate Republicans and independents, as well as the working and middle class who voted for Trump before to vote Dem this time.

Somebody has probably analyzed it, but the key is those very few areas that voted against Hillary in 2016 and turned the Electoral College for Trump.  Which is more critical in those areas - people of color, moderates, working and middle class?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Think we have discussed this before.  To me, the key is to get the moderate Republicans and independents, as well as the working and middle class who voted for Trump before to vote Dem this time.

Somebody has probably analyzed it, but the key is those very few areas that voted against Hillary in 2016 and turned the Electoral College for Trump.  Which is more critical in those areas - people of color, moderates, working and middle class?

I believe polling data indicates that < 5% will flip (vote differently in 2020 then they did in 2016,  as it relates to For-Trump or NOT) and therefore there are more  votes to be had by those that did NOT vote at all in 2016.

The Dem will need both,   but campaign spending should focus more on those that didn't vote at all in 2016,  than trying to "flip" those that did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I believe polling data indicates that < 5% will flip (vote differently in 2020 then they did in 2016,  as it relates to For-Trump or NOT) and therefore there are more  votes to be had by those that did NOT vote at all in 2016.

The Dem will need both,   but campaign spending should focus more on those that didn't vote at all in 2016,  than trying to "flip" those that did.

 

"The Dem will need both,   but campaign spending should focus more on those that didn't vote at all in 2016,  than trying to "flip" those that did."

I don't disagree that this is a laudable goal for the Dems, but can they succeed?  If they did not bother to vote in 2016, what will make them vote in 2020?  Did they vote in 2018?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCid said:

If they did not bother to vote in 2016, what will make them vote in 2020?

Granted it will be a major task to get these citizens to vote in 2020.    I still say the best one is:

If the candidate is a white-male:

 Harris as Veep:     as you noted too-many people-of-color citizens only vote every 8 or 12 years.     One reason is that they only get motivated for 'historical' elections:   E.g. electing the first black President;       Thus the task  is to make these citizens FEEL this is a "historical" election:   they can help elect the first black women Veep!        

If the candidate is white-female

Cory Booker or Julian Castro:

Yea, yea, yea,   historically the Veep selection doesn't move-the-needle (maybe Palin did but in a negative way?),    but it might this time against Trump due to all the MSM coverage of Trump and racial "issues" ;     E.g.  someone like Castro should be able to motivate Latino citizens that didn't vote in 2016 with the immigration issue:   "Trump put people that look like you or that came from the county of your ancestors in cages,,,".

Granted all this could be wishful thinking but I still believe there are more votes to be had trying this person-of-color Veep strategy than trying to flip the relatively small group of undecided moderate GOPers and independents.          E.g.  Dems hoped more dirt on Trump (e.g. the Ukraine phone call),  would move some of these folks but polling data showed it didn't.      I don't think more "dirt"  (e.g.  release of Trump tax returns),   would either.

Could use of social-media make the Veep position more of a factor then it has been historically?      I.e. "sell" the "this is a historical election" POV leading to record voter turnout?

Anyhow,   if you were leading the Dem campaign what would you purpose to flip these moderate-Gopers and independents? 

   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Anyhow,   if you were leading the Dem campaign what would you propose to flip these moderate-Gopers and independents? 

   

How about an easy question?  It will be hard as the best thing Trump and GOPers have is "The Economy."  Add to that his support (supposedly) for the "military."  Whether we believe it or not, they do.   I do believe continuing to present all the reasons why Trump is the worst president in US history will help.  Even the impeachment will help some in that if you keep saying something long enough, people begin to believe it.  After all that is part of reason why Trump won - people believed his lies.

What they do not need to do is let AO-C, Sanders, Warren, et.al. continue to preach MFA, free college education and all the other extremist socialist positions which will turn them off.   Attacking the military will turn them off.  It is a very fine line between attacking engorged DOD budgets and forever wars while not attacking the people who serve or served.

They have got to find and publicize the middle ground on immigration.

Dems have to convince moderates/independents that a vote for them is a vote for improved economy for ALL, significant improvements in health care & costs while protecting private insurance and access,  more employment and at higher wages, stability for corporations so they can expand and improve employment, stable trade relationships that increases overseas markets for US products and so forth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheCid said:

How about an easy question?  It will be hard as the best thing Trump and GOPers have is "The Economy."  Add to that his support (supposedly) for the "military."  Whether we believe it or not, they do.   I do believe continuing to present all the reasons why Trump is the worst president in US history will help.  Even the impeachment will help some in that if you keep saying something long enough, people begin to believe it.  After all that is part of reason why Trump won - people believed his lies.

What they do not need to do is let AO-C, Sanders, Warren, et.al. continue to preach MFA, free college education and all the other extremist socialist positions which will turn them off.   Attacking the military will turn them off.  It is a very fine line between attacking engorged DOD budgets and forever wars while not attacking the people who serve or served.

They have got to find and publicize the middle ground on immigration.

Dems have to convince moderates/independents that a vote for them is a vote for improved economy for ALL, significant improvements in health care & costs while protecting private insurance and access,  more employment and at higher wages, stability for corporations so they can expand and improve employment, stable trade relationships that increases overseas markets for US products and so forth. 

Yea,  if the Dem is a progressive trying to convince moderates/independents to vote for the candidate will be difficult (some may just sit out or vote for Trump).    But it will also be difficult to convince progressives to get out and vote for a moderate Dem since well known progressive pols  like A.O.C.,  as well as activist groups,  may  NOT support said candidate. 

E.g.   here is what A.O.C. had to say about Buttigieg's lack of support for "college for all" because it would provide free-college to rich families:  "This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems,  & it's sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it".

Then there is how race and gender are dividing the party:   E.g.  about the bitterness towards Buttigieg from people-of-color or women.   Here is what Aimee Allison,  founder of She-The-People,  a group that promotes women of color in politics:  The hype around Buttigieg is "very hard to stomach".    "We have other candidates who are carrying the hopes and dreams of millions who haven't been given that".      Would someone that is sicken by the "hype around" Pete,   advise their members to vote for him?

From Rebecca Katz,  founder of the progressive consulting firm New-Deal-Strategies:  "There is frustration that Pete is the living and breathing embodiment of white-male privilege".

Look to me like the Dem party will end up defeating itself regardless if the candidate is a moderate or progressive and surly if it is a white-male. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,  if the Dem is a progressive trying to convince moderates/independents to vote for the candidate will be difficult (some may just sit out or vote for Trump).    But it will also be difficult to convince progressives to get out and vote for a moderate Dem since well known progressive pols  like A.O.C.,  as well as activist groups,  may  NOT support said candidate. 

E.g.   here is what A.O.C. had to say about Buttigieg's lack of support for "college for all" because it would provide free-college to rich families:  "This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems,  & it's sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it".

Then there is how race and gender are dividing the party:   E.g.  about the bitterness towards Buttigieg from people-of-color or women.   Here is what Aimee Allison,  founder of She-The-People,  a group that promotes women of color in politics:  The hype around Buttigieg is "very hard to stomach".    "We have other candidates who are carrying the hopes and dreams of millions who haven't been given that".      Would someone that is sicken by the "hype around" Pete,   advise their members to vote for him?

From Rebecca Katz,  founder of the progressive consulting firm New-Deal-Strategies:  "There is frustration that Pete is the living and breathing embodiment of white-male privilege".

Look to me like the Dem party will end up defeating itself regardless if the candidate is a moderate or progressive and surly if it is a white-male. 

 

 

 

Well, look at all the horrible (and true) things the GOPers said about Trump before he became the nominee.  I think there are too many groups out there who will be very ineffective with most voters.  There are just too many of them and still has to motivate the lackadaisical voters while not losing the progressives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Well, look at all the horrible (and true) things the GOPers said about Trump before he became the nominee.  I think there are too many groups out there who will be very ineffective with most voters.  There are just too many of them and still has to motivate the lackadaisical voters while not losing the progressives.

But as you know,  historically   GOPers have been much more likely to circle-the-wagons,   hold-their-nose and get out and vote for the GOP nominee,  than Dems.

I assume by "ineffective with most voters" you mean these groups' ability in getting Dems to get out and vote for the Dem candidate.  

I agree with that especially the people-of-color groups;     This was covered in that article about the now all-white-Dem debates;   that while these groups are highly disappointed, they have no one to blame but themselves since they couldn't motivate people-of-color to support (provide donations,   vote for Harris,  Booker,  etc.. in a poll),  people-of-color candidates and thus these candidates had to drop out or couldn't qualify for the debates.     (but instead of blaming themselves  they fault white privilege).

  

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 5:03 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

But as you know,  historically   GOPers have been much more likely to circle-the-wagons,   hold-their-nose and get out and vote for the GOP nominee,  than Dems.

I assume by "ineffective with most voters" you mean these groups' ability in getting Dems to get out and vote for the Dem candidate.  

I agree with that especially the people-of-color groups;     This was covered in that article about the now all-white-Dem debates;   that while these groups are highly disappointed, they have no one to blame but themselves since they couldn't motivate people-of-color to support (provide donations,   vote for Harris,  Booker,  etc.. in a poll),  people-of-color candidates and thus these candidates had to drop out or couldn't qualify for the debates.     (but instead of blaming themselves  they fault white privilege).

  

   

I got to thinking about this and this thread is probably as good a place as any to bring it up.  Apologize in advance for those who may be offended.

Why do now use the people-of-color nomenclature?  Why not use colored people?  I realize that that was an offensive descriptor used for blacks in the past, but it fits.  Of course the NAACP still references it in their name.  I remember at one time, the NAACP tried to present itself as the group representing all "people-of-color."

You don't hear references to people-of-white.   Maybe use non-white people, a phrase which seems to have dropped out of usage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Why do now use the people-of-color nomenclature?  Why not use colored people?  I realize that that was an offensive descriptor used for blacks in the past, but it fits.  Of course the NAACP still references it in their name.  I remember at one time, the NAACP tried to present itself as the group representing all "people-of-color."

You don't hear references to people-of-white.   Maybe use non-white people, a phrase which seems to have dropped out of usage. 

Since white is a color, technically white people are people of color too, which makes all this nomenclature somewhat ambiguous. I doubt if there is any way to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction.

As far as the phrase "people of color" versus "colored people," my guess is that the newer phrase reflects the practice  of putting the person first and the characteristic second so that the person is not "defined" by the characteristic. For example, as a teacher, we used to say "special education students," but now we'd say "students with a learning disability" or "students who are mentally challenged."

I once sat through a graduate committee meeting in which we tried to come up with "correct" names for every ethnic group so no one would be offended, and it was unintentionally hilarious, since none of the ethnic groups were represented at the meeting.

My doctoral dissertation was on the mathematics of Native North Americans, a title we settled on after searching literature for the "best" label. Interestingly enough, my research led me to conversations with many Native Americans, most of whom didn't care whether they were called American Indians or Native Americans. I sometimes think white people get more hung up on these labels than do the people they are trying to "describe."

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Colored people" is generally associated with black people only, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. It's also considered archaic, and offensive to some, due to its association with the Jim Crow era. "People of color", on the other hand, refers to anyone who isn't white, so it includes Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or anything else that isn't European. The "people of color" grouping seems like all other races ganging up on the whites, which is more than a little karmic, I suppose. 

I tend not to pay much attention to race-politics semantics. I still don't use "African-American", unless it's referring to an African immigrant that's now an American citizen.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

"Colored people" is generally associated with black people only, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. It's also considered archaic, and offensive to some, due to its association with the Jim Crow era. "People of color", on the other hand, refers to anyone who isn't white, so it includes Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or anything else that isn't European. The "people of color" grouping seems like all other races ganging up on the whites, which is more than a little karmic, I suppose. 

I tend not to pay much attention to race-politics semantics. I still don't use "African-American", unless it's referring to an African immigrant that's now an American citizen.

I would like to see a poll that asked people to define what "groups" are included under people-of-color.     

My guess is that for many (e.g.  right-leaning folks),  is that  Muslims\Middle-Eastern people  would be included.       E.g. by Trump-loving Bro-in-law and I discussed this a year ago.   He was positive that Arabs and other Middle-East people were NOT white.      

Thus to some people-of-color is anyone that isn't a white-of-European origin.     (e.g. people from Spain are Hispanic but my guess is that most classify them as white).

Anyhow race is only a social-construct (versus genome classification).      

As for race-politics semantics (as well as gender):   Yea, I wish the Dem party and left-leaning voters would "tend not to pay much attention" but sadly they do.     Therefore if the Dem candidate is a white-male,    voter turnout by people-of-color,  as well as women,   might be low enough to allow Trump to win re-election.

Just read those comments from people-of-color activist groups and their bitterness towards Mayor Pete and Joe Biden.      Of course some of this could be because they are "moderates",    since Sander and Warren haven't been targeted to the same degree.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCid said:

Thanks for the replies.  I guess my thinking was that we have replaced a simple term or phrase with a more cumbersome one, to include use of hyphens.

The term was also created to generate a stronger political effect.   As Larry noted color-people is viewed as just black people;    People-of-color are non-white,  and thus a much larger group of people.  Of course they all don't think,  or vote the same,   but Dems found it useful to still group them in the hope that they would do so (i.e. Vote Dem).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...