THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1858, 1859, 1860 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:47 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
Trump has tweeted 108 times today.


90 times before noon
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:07 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not?

Quote:
Despite the fact that the majority of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck, the average person spends $483 per month on non-essential expenses, Charles Schwab found.

It's easy to let your spending get out of hand, especially if you're not tracking your expenses to see where your money goes. It may feel as if you're stretching every dollar and can't afford to set any money aside in your retirement fund or savings account, but you're probably spending more than you think on things you don't need.


Here’s another excerpt from that second article and I’ve long thought that is a huge problem in my generation and is a huge contributor to the paycheck to paycheck issue.

Wage growth needs to improve. I totally agree. How do you think we can do that and what democratic candidates do you see being able implement policies that will get it done?


I guess underemployment is better than unemployment, in the same way drowning is better than being burned alive. It's technically better. But still not something you want to see.

I wish they explained what is considered non-essential expenses. I've seen some consider cell phones, not using public transportation, eating foods that have nutritional value, and internet access as non-essential expenses. Similar to underemployment, having any quality of life is ignored to a scary degree.

Both Bernie and Warren support increasing the minimum wage drastically. Among other policies that can lessen the ever growing divide in income and wealth inequality.


And who is this average person, and what is their income?

Considering a Charles Schuab employee wrote the article. "Average person" is the subset that made their point the best.
To reinforce your point. Paycheck to paycheck people were listed at high 70%s of higher earlier in 2019 by other publications without a vested interested.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Lebrons
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 4778

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:11 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
Trump has tweeted 108 times today.


Flood the timeline. Create your own reality. It works.

I've started going through and unfollowing people who tweet that much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:11 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
IMO it boils down to this -- people are afraid Trump will win and they want a safe white daddy-figure to rescue them. That is the beginning, middle and end of Biden's poll support, IMO. He didn't "do" anything to "get his groove back." The media did it's usual job of magnifying "flaws" in women and candidates of color candidates while giving the white men a big fat pass (it's called white male privilege).

I'm resigned to him being the nominee. but hearing the other day that he is actually telegraphing that fact that he only wants to serve one term and won't run for re-election makes me even angrier that he jumped into the race at all.

Whatever.


In an attempt to soothe your anger/upset/whatever word addresses your POV. I'll propose the hypothetical where he is the only Democrat candidate who beats Trump in Pennsylvania and steals another midwestern state.

Not saying that is a definite truth. Just trying to soothe the thought we both share.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:41 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:20 pm    Post subject:

The Lebrons wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Trump has tweeted 108 times today.


Flood the timeline. Create your own reality. It works.

I've started going through and unfollowing people who tweet that much.


Yep. I was reading last night how he uses Twitter as a news diversion

Yesterday Democrats also wrote an article for both

Disbarr William Barr
Clarify that Russia was responsible for 2016

Maybe he is trying to drown out those stories
Crappy MSM has not disclosed that Christopher Steele was dating/spying through Ivanka for 2 years before Jared got into the picture or if they did it was a blip. This is huge. British MI6 spy dating in the Trump family

H.Res.757 - Calling for the resignation and disbarment of United States Attorney General William P. Barr, and for other purposes.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/757/text?r=18

H.Res.759 - Expressing that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Russian Federation interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election and deliberately spread false information to implicate the Republic of Ukraine.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/759
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:36 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
IMO it boils down to this -- people are afraid Trump will win and they want a safe white daddy-figure to rescue them. That is the beginning, middle and end of Biden's poll support, IMO. He didn't "do" anything to "get his groove back." The media did it's usual job of magnifying "flaws" in women and candidates of color candidates while giving the white men a big fat pass (it's called white male privilege).

I'm resigned to him being the nominee. but hearing the other day that he is actually telegraphing that fact that he only wants to serve one term and won't run for re-election makes me even angrier that he jumped into the race at all.

Whatever.

What he "did" is simply that he was Obama's VP. Because of that he is "safe" to a big chunk of Democratic voters. I think that's the beginning and end explaining his margin. The Obama leftover/known factor is the biggest part. I doubt the white part of your formulation is they key factor for nonwhite Biden supporters anyway. And that support for him is huge.

I don't see why you or anyone should be resigned to him as the nominee at this point three months before the California primary and over half a year before the convention. The challenge IMO is to layout how Biden is actually an unsafe choice vs. incumbent Trump. I think choosing him is a path to losing barring intervening events bc of turnout concerns. He inspires few.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:49 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Jamil Smith @JamilSmith

Trump could sit on his couch eating KFC until next November and would get 40 percent of the vote, because white patriarchy. He can barely read or put two sentences together without uttering a malaprop or something traitorous. Of course he might not debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 13855

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:34 pm    Post subject:

At this point his supporters are firmly entrenched. To do anything but support him is to "lose" to them, and they are a group that won't accept loss. That is why they're so susceptible to conspiracy theories about fake votes, and they'll be willing to believe any counter explanation as to how the democrats stole the election, if Trump loses the election.

I don't expect his numbers to go any lower, I just hope people show up to vote this time instead of protest voting, or protest non-voting.

I'm sure Russian/foreign/GOP ads and strategy will be to make democratic voters feel disenfranchised, which they already do based on the poll results alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:42 pm    Post subject:

focus wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
IMO it boils down to this -- people are afraid Trump will win and they want a safe white daddy-figure to rescue them. That is the beginning, middle and end of Biden's poll support, IMO. He didn't "do" anything to "get his groove back." The media did it's usual job of magnifying "flaws" in women and candidates of color candidates while giving the white men a big fat pass (it's called white male privilege).

I'm resigned to him being the nominee. but hearing the other day that he is actually telegraphing that fact that he only wants to serve one term and won't run for re-election makes me even angrier that he jumped into the race at all.

Whatever.

What he "did" is simply that he was Obama's VP. Because of that he is "safe" to a big chunk of Democratic voters. I think that's the beginning and end explaining his margin. The Obama leftover/known factor is the biggest part. I doubt the white part of your formulation is they key factor for nonwhite Biden supporters anyway. And that support for him is huge.

I don't see why you or anyone should be resigned to him as the nominee at this point three months before the California primary and over half a year before the convention. The challenge IMO is to layout how Biden is actually an unsafe choice vs. incumbent Trump. I think choosing him is a path to losing barring intervening events bc of turnout concerns. He inspires few.


Biden discusses actual policy to improve people's lives at such a shockingly low rate I have no doubt it would be a 2016 redux where the whole election centers on Trump's lack of morality (the American people are probably more normalized to it now than they were then), and voters in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan say "eff it" and stay home again.


Last edited by greenfrog on Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:45 pm    Post subject:

focus wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
IMO it boils down to this -- people are afraid Trump will win and they want a safe white daddy-figure to rescue them. That is the beginning, middle and end of Biden's poll support, IMO. He didn't "do" anything to "get his groove back." The media did it's usual job of magnifying "flaws" in women and candidates of color candidates while giving the white men a big fat pass (it's called white male privilege).

I'm resigned to him being the nominee. but hearing the other day that he is actually telegraphing that fact that he only wants to serve one term and won't run for re-election makes me even angrier that he jumped into the race at all.

Whatever.

What he "did" is simply that he was Obama's VP. Because of that he is "safe" to a big chunk of Democratic voters. I think that's the beginning and end explaining his margin. The Obama leftover/known factor is the biggest part. I doubt the white part of your formulation is they key factor for nonwhite Biden supporters anyway. And that support for him is huge.

I don't see why you or anyone should be resigned to him as the nominee at this point three months before the California primary and over half a year before the convention. The challenge IMO is to layout how Biden is actually an unsafe choice vs. incumbent Trump. I think choosing him is a path to losing barring intervening events bc of turnout concerns. He inspires few.


There was a tremendous backlash (or "whitelash" as it's been called) to the first black president. Trump tapped into that "cultural anxiety." The white non-college voters in purple states who swing between voting Democratic and Republican barely swing to Trump in 2016 helped along by a good dose of misogyny, the Russians and Comey.

Black people and non-whites saw what happened when white Americans expressed their fears at the ballot box. They know what the subtext of "Make America Great Again" really is. They are pragmatic enough to rally around the safe white moderate man who was Obama's VP because they believe he can win because he's not a threat to those fearful white non-college voters. I'm not saying it's necessarily true that those white voters will swing to Biden, but that's the underlying psychology at play here.

There are two theories about how the Democrats can win. One is to serve up the safe white moderate male candidate hoping to win over swing voters and some Trump voters, and taking it for granted that the left, progressives, young people and women will vote for him anyway.

The second theory revolves around overcoming the loss of swing votes by choosing a candidate that excites the base, young people and new voters so the Democratic wave is large enough to ensure victory.

I believe in the second theory. But I'm not sure that's where we are headed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:59 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Black people and non-whites saw what happened when white Americans expressed their fears at the ballot box. They know what the subtext of "Make America Great Again" really is. They are pragmatic enough to rally around the safe white moderate man who was Obama's VP because they believe he can win because he's not a threat to those fearful white non-college voters. I'm not saying it's necessarily true that those white voters will swing to Biden, but that's the underlying psychology at play here.


It varies based on region. In this recent CNN California poll the non-white vote is actually splitting fairly evenly between Biden and Bernie.


Last edited by greenfrog on Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:05 pm    Post subject:

Both old white guys. Same psychology applies. 99% of our presidents have been old white guys.

Last edited by ChefLinda on Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:07 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:10 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13711

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:16 pm    Post subject:

No vote on the two articles tonight.

Committee will reconvene at 10 am eastern.

Gohmert, who is a birther, calls Nadler "Stalinesque" for surprising everyone by postponing the vote until tomorrow.

Collins complains that Democrats like the cameras, while saying that to a bunch of cameras. More fake outrage about this than anything Trump has done in office.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:31 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:00 pm    Post subject:

You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments

I've removed the name from this quote because I know the person who said this feels ganged up on and I don't want to further that feeling, but I do feel this needs to addressed, and it hasn't been.

People denigrate the Republicans collectively not out of ignorance, but because of how the Republicans, as an entirety, have conducted themselves since November of 2016. Under Trump, they have quietly sat back and watched as Trump has subverted the very essence of what this country was founded upon and has stood for as it has evolved over the almost 1/4th of a millennium of it's declared existence.

The Republicans have become the Party Before Country party. More importantly, they have become the Party Before Human Decency party. They have, in their entirety, embraced the corruption, divineness, bigotry, greediness, xenophobia, misogyny, and outright lies that embody Trump. Republicans not only embrace the vileness that is Trump, they excuse it and perpetuate it. There is not even a hint at Republican dissent regarding what Trump has done and come to represent. From top to bottom, Republicans have literally become a cult beholding to Trump because their personal gains and aims are more important than humanity. The Republicans are a group that sits back and watches as children are separated from their parents and left in cages while USBP neglect allows some of them to literally die shivering on a concrete floor.

This isn't just about Trump or Mitch or Hannity. This is entirely about Republicans as a whole. Until Republicans demonstrate there is any decency within their ranks in any slightly significant fashion, they deserve the derision they have garnered.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:03 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?


Yes, in the Democratic primary (made up of multicultrual coalition) with no incumbent on the ballot; then the lesson they learned is that white people ultimately betrayed them when she went up against Trump. White people elected Trump. The majority of white people still support Trump. White women are barely at 50/50. White men are Trump's strongest core supporters.

(Non-college white women, especially Evangelicals and married white women are part of the patriarchy. They perceive their benefits through marriage.)

You cannot take racism (or sexism) out of a national US election. I realize that offends some people when I talk about it so openly. But it's right there like an open wound. It does no good to ignore it or deny it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:52 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?


Yes, in the Democratic primary (made up of multicultrual coalition) with no incumbent on the ballot; then the lesson they learned is that white people ultimately betrayed them when she went up against Trump. White people elected Trump. The majority of white people still support Trump. White women are barely at 50/50. White men are Trump's strongest core supporters.

(Non-college white women, especially Evangelicals and married white women are part of the patriarchy. They perceive their benefits through marriage.)

You cannot take racism (or sexism) out of a national US election. I realize that offends some people when I talk about it so openly. But it's right there like an open wound. It does no good to ignore it or deny it.


I don't mind it being discussed. It just strikes me as more likely that the race is consolidating on pure ideological lines (this is a good thing, IMO), and the two most extreme examples of that happen to be two old white men. Warren is simply not more or even equally as progressive as Bernie, and Biden is very hard to eclipse in the centrism lane (although Klobuchar may have a patriarchal case).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Palin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 1807

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:03 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?


Yes, in the Democratic primary (made up of multicultrual coalition) with no incumbent on the ballot; then the lesson they learned is that white people ultimately betrayed them when she went up against Trump. White people elected Trump. The majority of white people still support Trump. White women are barely at 50/50. White men are Trump's strongest core supporters.

(Non-college white women, especially Evangelicals and married white women are part of the patriarchy. They perceive their benefits through marriage.)

You cannot take racism (or sexism) out of a national US election. I realize that offends some people when I talk about it so openly. But it's right there like an open wound. It does no good to ignore it or deny it.


I don't mind it being discussed. It just strikes me as more likely that the race is consolidating on pure ideological lines (this is a good thing, IMO), and the two most extreme examples of that happen to be two old white men. Warren is simply not more or even equally as progressive as Bernie, and Biden is very hard to eclipse in the centrism lane (although Klobuchar may have a patriarchal case).


So where were those racist white guys back in 2008 and 2012? Guess they don't mind "black guy" but "THAT WHITE LADY!!!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:05 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?


Yes, in the Democratic primary (made up of multicultrual coalition) with no incumbent on the ballot; then the lesson they learned is that white people ultimately betrayed them when she went up against Trump. White people elected Trump. The majority of white people still support Trump. White women are barely at 50/50. White men are Trump's strongest core supporters.

(Non-college white women, especially Evangelicals and married white women are part of the patriarchy. They perceive their benefits through marriage.)

You cannot take racism (or sexism) out of a national US election. I realize that offends some people when I talk about it so openly. But it's right there like an open wound. It does no good to ignore it or deny it.


I don't mind it being discussed. It just strikes me as more likely that the race is consolidating on pure ideological lines (this is a good thing, IMO), and the two most extreme examples of that happen to be two old white men. Warren is simply not more or even equally as progressive as Bernie, and Biden is very hard to eclipse in the centrism lane (although Klobuchar may have a patriarchal case).


I get CL's point.
The way I see it is. More people make the Warren = Hillary comparison than the Biden = Hillary comparison.
Just because the former are both white women. Even though politically and relatively (compared to other candidates) speaking. Biden has much more in common will Hillary.
Biden and 2016 Hillary are both "Washington insider", more moderate Democrat nominees. And if Biden loses, the same "we should've nominated a progressive" argument from 2016 will be regurgitated by members of the Democratic party.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:10 pm    Post subject:

To some people the lesson learned from 2016 is don't risk running a woman against Trump. And that speaks to what CL is talking about.
Maybe the more pertinent lesson is, don't expect the far left to carry you over the finish line if a progressive isn't on the ballot. Even though I personally don't support that stubbornness. It makes logical sense the far left would be against compromise moreso than moderate Democrats.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:17 pm    Post subject:

Palin wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Both old white guys. Same psychology applies.


I highly doubt anyone looks to Bernie as a safe bet.


Old white guy --> safer bet than a woman, black woman, black man, latino man, gay man (in many people's eyes).

Patriarchy is real.


Didn't they prefer Hillary to him in 2016?


Yes, in the Democratic primary (made up of multicultrual coalition) with no incumbent on the ballot; then the lesson they learned is that white people ultimately betrayed them when she went up against Trump. White people elected Trump. The majority of white people still support Trump. White women are barely at 50/50. White men are Trump's strongest core supporters.

(Non-college white women, especially Evangelicals and married white women are part of the patriarchy. They perceive their benefits through marriage.)

You cannot take racism (or sexism) out of a national US election. I realize that offends some people when I talk about it so openly. But it's right there like an open wound. It does no good to ignore it or deny it.


I don't mind it being discussed. It just strikes me as more likely that the race is consolidating on pure ideological lines (this is a good thing, IMO), and the two most extreme examples of that happen to be two old white men. Warren is simply not more or even equally as progressive as Bernie, and Biden is very hard to eclipse in the centrism lane (although Klobuchar may have a patriarchal case).


So where were those racist white guys back in 2008 and 2012? Guess they don't mind "black guy" but "THAT WHITE LADY!!!"


Many of those people actually did give "the black guy" a chance and then decided that was enough and the presidency should go back where it belonged - to a white man. I've always said it was combination of racism and misogyny that elected Trump. I've seen nothing to contradict that. In fact all the polling done after the election showed Trump 2016 voters had high correlation of "cultural anxiety" (due to changing demographics of America, i.e., race) and anger/resentment toward women seeking power (including other women).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:29 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
To some people the lesson learned from 2016 is don't risk running a woman against Trump. And that speaks to what CL is talking about.
Maybe the more pertinent lesson is, don't expect the far left to carry you over the finish line if a progressive isn't on the ballot. Even though I personally don't support that stubbornness. It makes logical sense the far left would be against compromise moreso than moderate Democrats.


Hillary lost the electoral college by 77,000 votes in 3 states. Third-party Jill Stein votes and Bernie Sanders write-in votes totaled around 800,000 in those states. If the left hadn't fallen for "both sides are the same" "Shillary" "Emails!" "DNC stole it from Bernie" we would have been able to overcome Trump's base. We don't need to reach out to the Trumpers, we need to educate/motivate our base to not sit home or throw their vote away. You'd think that would be obvious after the living nightmare of this hellish administration, but people on the left are still falling for Russian-pushed disinformation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:03 am    Post subject:

For savvier UK politics watchers here, Scottish secession seems inevitable, right?
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1858, 1859, 1860 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1859 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB