Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Hillis wrote:Of course many white feel that way. They feel that THEY are the ones being discriminated against. They are the snowflakes now.
Dreadnought wrote:When you have black power-based movements trying to kick whites off campus, have blacks-only graduation ceremonies, blacks only college dormitories, firing white professors from "black colleges simply for being white, and basically pushing a racist agenda of their own, while labeling all those who did not vote the way they like as "racists", of course you are going to have pushback. Frankly I'm surprised the sympathy vote is still at 32%. If the racist black power/BLM movement keeps going, the pushback will be massive. I think they have set the civil rights movement back decades.
And think of this - almost every decent job today requires a background check. It's easy to dig up your facebook, twitter, and instagram posts. I'll be you that 90%+ of all these racists who took over Evergreen University and rioted in Portland etc when they are in their 30s and 40s, they will wonder why they can't get a job that doesn't require a nametag. Of course they will blame whitey, and not understand that employers will see their background and simply not want an entitled snowflake working for them.
Hillis wrote:Of course many white feel that way. They feel that THEY are the ones being discriminated against. They are the snowflakes now.
And it all comes back to the changing demographics of this nation. Whites, which I am, no longer have unchallenged dominance of the political, social and economic future of this nation. The white population is shrinking; the Hispanic/Latino population is rising. And too many whites feel threatened by that. And that's why so many of them voted for 45. They think he can somehow magically Make America White Again.
But he can't do it because the demographics are changing too fast. He won on a freakish combination of events, and I don't think it could be repeated in 2020. The white vote will be down another 4% by then. Besides, I don't think he'll be in office by 2020.
Whites certainly will play a huge role in the life of this nation, don't get me wrong, but many of them want unquestioned, unchallenged dominance, like it was in the past. That's what they mean by "Make America Great Again." They want the nation white again.
apodino wrote:6. I have lived in a few different places in this country. I can safely say that Boston was the most racist place I lived in. And it was the Bluest area. I went to school with racists there. The Charlie Stuart case inflamed racial tensions for months. I live in Texas now, and racism exists far less here than it does in Boston.
Dreadnought wrote:When you have black power-based movements trying to kick whites off campus, have blacks-only graduation ceremonies, blacks only college dormitories, firing white professors from "black colleges simply for being white, and basically pushing a racist agenda of their own, while labeling all those who did not vote the way they like as "racists", of course you are going to have pushback. Frankly I'm surprised the sympathy vote is still at 32%. If the racist black power/BLM movement keeps going, the pushback will be massive. I think they have set the civil rights movement back decades.
And think of this - almost every decent job today requires a background check. It's easy to dig up your facebook, twitter, and instagram posts. I'll be you that 90%+ of all these racists who took over Evergreen University and rioted in Portland etc when they are in their 30s and 40s, they will wonder why they can't get a job that doesn't require a nametag. Of course they will blame whitey, and not understand that employers will see their background and simply not want an entitled snowflake working for them.
seahawk wrote:You can easily make America white again. Immigration, social security and health care are instruments that can achieve just this.
Dreadnought wrote:When you have black power-based movements trying to kick whites off campus, have blacks-only graduation ceremonies, blacks only college dormitories, firing white professors from "black colleges simply for being white, and basically pushing a racist agenda of their own, while labeling all those who did not vote the way they like as "racists", of course you are going to have pushback. Frankly I'm surprised the sympathy vote is still at 32%. If the racist black power/BLM movement keeps going, the pushback will be massive. I think they have set the civil rights movement back decades.
And think of this - almost every decent job today requires a background check. It's easy to dig up your facebook, twitter, and instagram posts. I'll be you that 90%+ of all these racists who took over Evergreen University and rioted in Portland etc when they are in their 30s and 40s, they will wonder why they can't get a job that doesn't require a nametag. Of course they will blame whitey, and not understand that employers will see their background and simply not want an entitled snowflake working for them.
Hillis wrote:But he can't do it because the demographics are changing too fast. He won on a freakish combination of events, and I don't think it could be repeated in 2020.
jetero wrote:seahawk wrote:You can easily make America white again. Immigration, social security and health care are instruments that can achieve just this.
"Make America White Again" through social security and health care?! What exactly are you proposing? Withholding health care to the poor, which are disproportionately racial minorities? "Death panels" by color?
These days I wouldn't be surprised.
seahawk wrote:jetero wrote:seahawk wrote:You can easily make America white again. Immigration, social security and health care are instruments that can achieve just this.
"Make America White Again" through social security and health care?! What exactly are you proposing? Withholding health care to the poor, which are disproportionately racial minorities? "Death panels" by color?
These days I wouldn't be surprised.
If the percentage of some ethnic groups are higher within the the poor part of the society, reducing health care and social security will see a higher mortality rate in those groups. My comment was not meant as a proposal, just as a fact.
LAX772LR wrote:At least I learned. Will the rest?
jetero wrote:LAX772LR wrote:OK, if I accept your theory, why do people who would otherwise vote Democrat turn around and vote Republican? Because they're less "corporate"? Just to prove a moral point?At least I learned. Will the rest?
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:LAX772LR wrote:OK, if I accept your theory, why do people who would otherwise vote Democrat turn around and vote Republican? Because they're less "corporate"? Just to prove a moral point?At least I learned. Will the rest?
Two things:
1) the far Left's aversion to corporate shills is primarily an issue of the primaries, that bled into the general
2) the answer to your question has been discussed a million times by a million sources, nearly all coming to the same conclusion:
Hillary completely misjudged/misread the national zeitgeist, and ran an absolutely TERRIBLE campaign that reflected that.
She ran on past experience, past connections, and continuing a previous agenda, when above all else, 2016 was a referendum on **CHANGE**. The electorate wanted someone who'd do/view things differently, unconventionally, and against the establishment-- and were willing to overlook any proximate flaw in a candidate who claimed deliver that. Witness one Donald Trump.
Trump: "America never wins, we're not 'great anymore,' we're losing XXX, vote for me let's start winning again"
Hillary: "America already is great, but Donald Trump is baddddd"
Is it really worth asking why undecided key segments of the electorate (that she never even bothered visiting!!!!!) who once went Obama (a candidate who ALSO came to power by promising "change"), overwhelmingly broke for Trump?
LAX772LR wrote:She ran on past experience, past connections, and continuing a previous agenda, when above all else, 2016 was a referendum on **CHANGE**. The electorate wanted someone who'd do/view things differently, unconventionally, and against the establishment-- and were willing to overlook any proximate flaw in a candidate who claimed deliver that. Witness one Donald Trump.
LAX772LR wrote:Hillis wrote:But he can't do it because the demographics are changing too fast. He won on a freakish combination of events, and I don't think it could be repeated in 2020.
Sadly, you've learned nothing from 2016.
Nor 1984, 2004, or 2012.
...nor have the Dems, for that matter.
Russian matters aside, what have they proposed or done differently since the election? Not much.
They're till focusing on Trump's childish/erratic/boorish/illogical behavior, as opposed to his administration's utter incompetence vis-a-vis legislation.
And that DOESN'T WORK!
"I don't have squat to offer that you haven't already heard, but at least I'm not THAT guy," always falls flat on its face against a sitting incumbent. Just ask Walter Mondale, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, if you need a first-hand witness to that effect.
*********************************************************
The Democrat(ic) leadership still refuses to acknowledge (much less address) the **CORE** issue that started the rift between the subsections of their base in the first place: that much of the center-Left and all of the far-Left, refuse to support a candidate whose primary source of funding is corporate interests.
It had nothing to do with the cult-of-personality for Hillary Clinton (F her) or Bernie Sanders (F him too), nor emails, misogyny, Comey, etc. But that's why the arguably most-prepared candidate of all time, could nearly be stalemated by a feeble-looking duffer who apparently uses a static balloon for a hair brush.
In summary, I hate to sound like Ann Coulter giving her "Romney will lose" prediction.... but I'm telling you now, mark it down:
If the Dems run someone woefully and unashamedly paid-off by corporate interests (the most visible example being Cory Booker), they will lose again to Trump in 2020, BADLY. And if Trump isn't there, then to whatever GOPer succeeds him.
And while I'm at it, prediction #2:
Should Booker (as an example) excel in the primaries, the stupid-ass Dems are going to scream "RACISM!" and "HOMOPHOBIA!" at their own kind, who are trying to warn them that he's damaged-goods who won't unite the base. Just like they screamed "MISOGYNIST!" at anyone who tried to say the same about history. I myself am guilty of the latter, so there's that.
At least I learned. Will the rest?
coolian2 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:The electorate wanted someone who'd do/view things differently, unconventionally, and against the establishment-- and were willing to overlook any proximate flaw in a candidate who claimed deliver that. Witness one Donald Trump.
I do wonder how the electorate will respond given the mounting evidence that this change is not happening.
jetero wrote:So Hillary could've won if she were less corporate, or she could've won if she ran on change platform or both? Your prediction for 2020 was predicated only on the first.
jetero wrote:seahawk wrote:jetero wrote:
"Make America White Again" through social security and health care?! What exactly are you proposing? Withholding health care to the poor, which are disproportionately racial minorities? "Death panels" by color?
These days I wouldn't be surprised.
If the percentage of some ethnic groups are higher within the the poor part of the society, reducing health care and social security will see a higher mortality rate in those groups. My comment was not meant as a proposal, just as a fact.
Silly me for confusing such an innocent little aside/public service message for your implicit advocacy of the Republican playbook.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:But what is our next best realistic option?
DarkSnowyNight wrote:As much as I'd be good with Newsome, I'm not sold he'll actually run.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:With Booker, we have the most likely candidate to win.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:Bernie demonstrated that this is possible for us.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:I also think he's smart enough to read the tea leaves and go away (somewhat) from corporate sponsorship towards a more populist stance on financing,
DarkSnowyNight wrote:should that become a major campaign issue
DarkSnowyNight wrote:So I would ask at what point handing the race over to Trump looks better? I'm not saying your issue is unimportant, (it's a huge deal) but is it something you're willing to wait until 2024 over?
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:So Hillary could've won if she were less corporate, or she could've won if she ran on change platform or both? Your prediction for 2020 was predicated only on the first.
Wrong.
seahawk wrote:I am not even from the US and surely not a supporter of the Republican play book
jetero wrote:LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:So Hillary could've won if she were less corporate, or she could've won if she ran on change platform or both? Your prediction for 2020 was predicated only on the first.
Wrong.
Hey, your apparent conclusion, not mine.
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Wrong.
That you erroneously analyzed and thus needed to be corrected on... hence the statement.
jetero wrote:And I still don't understand your point.
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:And I still don't understand your point.
Then ask specifically, instead of speculating and then acting shocked when you're told that you figured wrong.
Though TBH, not sure what's difficult to follow about this.
But here, if you want to hear it from popular outlets of the far Left itself, then grab some popcorn and take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I67iRM6ijMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBhGFCZxOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFGTjfajDJ8
jetero wrote:I did ask specifically and got a Trumpian "wrong"
jetero wrote:and now an invitation to munch on popcorn and watch YouTube. Having trouble speaking for yourself?
jetero wrote:I guess I'll take that to mean you believe they both were contributors.
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:I did ask specifically and got a Trumpian "wrong"
And then somehow missed the three paragraphs that immediately followed thereafter?jetero wrote:and now an invitation to munch on popcorn and watch YouTube. Having trouble speaking for yourself?
Nope, just putting in progressively less effort due to your apparent inability to follow a conversation....jetero wrote:I guess I'll take that to mean you believe they both were contributors.
There ya go. Took you a while, but you got there.
jetero wrote:You Louisianans/elves have a strange way of communicating. I always was taught just to answer a question directly, not dig in my heels after several rounds of pontificating.
LAX772LR wrote:jetero wrote:You Louisianans/elves have a strange way of communicating. I always was taught just to answer a question directly, not dig in my heels after several rounds of pontificating.
I'm more along the "...if they don't grasp a simple concept the first couple of times you try to explain it to them, then why bother?" persuasion.
But if you insist, I'll play along: what part are you STILL having difficulty with?
jetero wrote:I'm good.