Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Scared?

Here's a snippet of the latest from the "woke" at one of the hospitals where I work, with some specifics redacted to protect the innocent:



50 years of computer hardware naming conventions between primary controller devices and dependent accessory hardware need to change RIGHT NOW, and in about a week a bunch of people are going to come in to work to find their printers don't work.

No, my friend, I wasn't exactly "scared" when I read this email.
While I agree that given scenario is completely ridiculous, if this is the type of stuff that would make someone vote for Trump, that person is just as ridiculous as the policy.

Full disclosure, I connect the SLAVE to the echo machine everyday and have even made a “connect the indentured servant” joke under my breath (honestly because i don’t think my colleagues are quick enough to get the joke)
 

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Moreover.....

I don’t care about any statues.
It’ll always be Mrs Butterworth and Aunt Jemima as far as I’m concerned.
OJ did it.
And yes, Kaepernick should be in the league.

Now, someone take me hunting so I can shot some non-human stuff and afterwards we’ll have an edible and discuss the top hip hop albums of all time.....hot take, To Pimp A Butterfly = overrated
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
13,369
12,481
Home again
Status
  1. Attending Physician
While I agree that given scenario is completely ridiculous, if this is the type of stuff that would make someone vote for Trump, that person is just as ridiculous as the policy.

Full disclosure, I connect the SLAVE to the echo machine everyday and have even made a “connect the indentured servant” joke under my breath (honestly because i don’t think my colleagues are quick enough to get the joke)
I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted :rolleyes: from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
About the Ads

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,454
9,254
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Oh, I’m not saying it wasn’t racist or poorly thought out and executed. No doubt about that.

If Trump were smarter he would have said from the get-go that everyone who comes across the border illegally gets put back across Immediately with the children they brought, to apply for asylum there (ie the situation that he eventually worked out successfully).

Moreover, instead of blanket-banning certain countries he should have expanded legal immigration and travel visas greatly with requirements to pass educational, language and jobs-based extensive vetting. This would avoid racism, ensure we get high-value legal immigrants + workers and avoid (most) people who won’t integrate culturally or possibly cause harm (see france’s major problem).

Bottom line, we need to tightly vet and control who comes in this country, and keep a short leash on those who might overstay their welcome — but of course he messed up that too (not that dems have a good plan for other reasons).

Lemme just address a couple points:

-I think asylum should remain the way it's always been- refugees should be able to stay in the US while their asylum proceeding is ongoing. But we must keep track of where they are while a decision is being made.

-Agree that legal immigration and travel visas should have been expanded. However, under trump it should be noted that *legal* immigration was cut by half. This is directly due to the racist intentions and policy of a one Stephen Miller.

-As far as "high-value" immigrants- we should be targeting these folks. Better if the brain drain affects other countries while we get their best talents. Buttttt, we have a TON of jobs here which immigrants with less education, both legal and undocumented, do which native Americans just don't. We at the very least need a robust guest worker program that builds on the various kinds of work visas available so we can get these people out of the shadows.

-Agree that ultimately we need strict oversight and control about who is coming in the country, no matter whether you are on the right or left



Regardless of where we disagree on these points, it's inarguable that trump and his crew literally picked the most racist, backward way to go about all of the right wing's immigration goals. Just like so many other things, they actually could've got more of what they wanted with different leadership at the top.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

chocomorsel

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
5,173
4,052
somewhere always warm
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted :rolleyes: from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.
I have read your posts on how you wouldn’t vote for the man.
But yet here you sit defending his voter base and calling out the “woke left.”

So it’s quite frankly confusing. And therefor needs clarifying in case something has been missed by my “woke self.”

And yeah, shut the SLAVES down if they stand for good old American black people slavery. I am glad some of us black people can laugh at it, but that is not all of us.

EDIT... Now that I am not multitasking in the kitchen and drinking my wine, why even address me? I am specifically addressing Trump supporters of which you claim NOT to be. My speech was my opinion on White men who voted for Trump and why I think they did.
So why are you even responding and getting pissed off on the subject if that ain't you?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,454
9,254
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted :rolleyes: from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.

To her point, when the left points to the inherent worry that many whites in the country have regarding changing demographics and power structures, I'm pretty sure they're not referring to white men fretting about corporate emails about primary controller devices or whether the hospital calls mobile computers WOWs instead of COWs.

Rather than watching you knockdown a strawman, I personally would be more interested in what you think about the rise of groups defending "Western chauvinism" or propagating white genocide conspiracy theories, or even the fact that one of our own posters a few pages ago analogized the so-called "woke left's" treatment of white men to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis or the treatment of the bourgeoisie by the Communists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,454
9,254
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Like so many things on the right, the perception is usually worse than the reality

1606009233729.png



They jump over themselves to say that white discrimination is a problem, but when asked for specific examples they come up short. Kind of like massive voter fraud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Like so many things on the right, the perception is usually worse than the reality

View attachment 323632



They jump over themselves to say that white discrimination is a problem, but when asked for specific examples they come up short. Kind of like massive voter fraud.

Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.
 

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
13,369
12,481
Home again
Status
  1. Attending Physician
To her point, when the left points to the inherent worry that many whites in the country have regarding changing demographics and power structures, I'm pretty sure they're not referring to whites fretting about corporate emails about primary controller devices or whether the hospital calls mobile computers WOWs instead of COWs.

What you're missing is that all of these stupid trivial little things are the raindrops that make the flood. I'm perplexed and mildly annoyed because some of the people steering the woke left are C R A Z Y. That one of the "action items" to come out of a series of focus groups and diversity meetings was to rename (and break, at least temporarily) a bunch of printers because of master/slave terminology that merely reflects their LITERAL relationship on the network is just a symptom.

And yeah, I'm kind of joking with the whole thing. Kind of an incredulous head-shaking laugh, but a laugh all the same.

Rather than watching you knockdown a strawman, I personally would be more interested in what you think about the rise of groups defending "Western chauvinism" or propagating white genocide conspiracy theories, or even the fact that one of our own posters a few pages ago analogized the so-called "woke left's" treatment of white men to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis or the treatment of the bourgeoisie by the Communists.

You didn't name them, but I'm going to assume by "western chauvinists" you're referring to the Proud Boys. I do basically agree with one of their fundamental position statements, namely that they are "proud and unabashed proponents of western civilization." I think western secular democracy is superior to the kind of theocratic or kleptocratic totalitarianism many parts of the world endure, and I don't feel the least bit ashamed to declare that the cultures that embrace those systems are inferior to mine. They are, by any objective measure of personal freedom, economic opportunity, physical security, you name it.

I think the only good Communist is one who was, moments ago, comfortably sitting in a helicopter. Nazis should be hung.

Now, many of those Proud Chums are obviously saying those words in a manner and context that includes some dog-whistley and not-so-subtle white supremacist meaning. And yeah, those guys suck. Racists and white supremacists are bad people. If you're a racist N-hating piece of trash looking for some like-minded pals, that organization is probably fertile ground to search.

All conspiracy theories are idiotic. I don't know what else to say about what I think about that.


As for Jew/Nazi/bourgeoisie/Communist analogies, yes, I think those analogies are strained. (Any analogy involving Hitler is more or less by definition at least a little hyperbolic.) However when it comes to the lived experiences of people who hail from such places and have endured such regimes, I'm inclined to look beyond the hyperbole for what wisdom of experience may lie behind it.



Why do you think Biden lost ground (compared to Clinton 2016) with the Cuban-American vote in Florida? Why did these brown people vote for a racist? Could it be that there's something in their lived experience that makes them wary of what the Democratic party says is good for America? Maybe they see something they've seen before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Lemme just address a couple points:

-I think asylum should remain the way it's always been- refugees should be able to stay in the US while their asylum proceeding is ongoing. But we must keep track of where they are while a decision is being made.

-Agree that legal immigration and travel visas should have been expanded. However, under trump it should be noted that *legal* immigration was cut by half. This is directly due to the racist intentions and policy of a one Stephen Miller.

-As far as "high-value" immigrants- we should be targeting these folks. Better if the brain drain affects other countries while we get their best talents. Buttttt, we have a TON of jobs here which immigrants with less education, both legal and undocumented, do which native Americans just don't. We at the very least need a robust guest worker program that builds on the various kinds of work visas available so we can get these people out of the shadows.

-Agree that ultimately we need strict oversight and control about who is coming in the country, no matter whether you are on the right or left



Regardless of where we disagree on these points, it's inarguable that trump and his crew literally picked the most racist, backward way to go about all of the right wing's immigration goals. Just like so many other things, they actually could've got more of what they wanted with different leadership at the top.

Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.
 

chocomorsel

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
5,173
4,052
somewhere always warm
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.
I am sorry. I need to know what a good fair wage for a crop picker should be. According to what I am seeing online they are making $12-16 an hour in California. Minimum wage is $12 an hour. Did these jobs used to pay much better in the past and when the pay went down people started quitting?
What do Americans want to get paid for these jobs?
I do agree with the nanny state though. Welfare goes too far and there needs to be a time limit on it.
 

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.
Don’t forget men.....and rich people

I love when people want to argue against AA they conveniently neglected that it benefits white women the most, not to mention the poor folks in rural areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
13,369
12,481
Home again
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.
Probably.

Farm labor costs are a tiny fraction of retail food costs.

This article is almost 10 years old but it plausibly claims that a 40% increase in farm wages would result in a 3.6% increase in retail prices.

As always, the solution to illegal labor isn't to crack down on the poor people doing the labor. It's to levy fines against the people hiring that labor, and if the fines don't work, arrest prosecute convict and imprison them. They are committing crimes, after all. Now that weed's legal in CA there ought to be lodging available.

The average hourly wage for a nonsupervisory agricultural worker in 2018 per USDA was about $14/hr. Double it to $28/hr and Americans would do the job. Triple it to $42/hr and Americans would fight over the job. And worst case the cost of a head of lettuce would go up about 10%, a trivial amount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
About the Ads

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.
The intersection of business owners and immigration reform would be a very interesting discussion because I'd make a small bet that many of those business owners that us undocumented labor (i'm so woke lol) also vote Republican so that intersection of Republican politics could be very interesting.
 

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Probably.

Farm labor costs are a tiny fraction of retail food costs.

This article is almost 10 years old but it plausibly claims that a 40% increase in farm wages would result in a 3.6% increase in retail prices.

As always, the solution to illegal labor isn't to crack down on the poor people doing the labor. It's to levy fines against the people hiring that labor, and if the fines don't work, arrest prosecute convict and imprison them. They are committing crimes, after all. Now that weed's legal in CA there ought to be lodging available.

The average hourly wage for a nonsupervisory agricultural worker in 2018 per USDA was about $14/hr. Double it to $28/hr and Americans would do the job. Triple it to $42/hr and Americans would fight over the job. And worst case the cost of a head of lettuce would go up about 10%, a trivial amount.
Nailing it right on the head right here, but it'll never happen, for the same reason that DUI's are mostly misdemeanors.
tenor-1.gif
That last part is a total thread de-railer, I know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,238
2,624
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.

Huh? Affirmative action benefits white people, especially white women. How is that discrimination against white people?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Huh? Affirmative action benefits white people, especially white women. How is that discrimination against white people?

Nah, I don’t buy that. I posted some tables earlier in this thread. It does not benefit rich people (who are going to have a leg up no matter what with resources). It penalizes poorer white and Asian people.
 

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Here’s an article that tries to “sum up” the evidence that AA has benefitted white women the most.


I don’t see a shred of evidence in it - basically the argument is that white women have attained better representation in schools and workplaces in the same time period AA was implemented. We all know that’s a super-weak correlation. How about major changes in society since the 80s requiring 2–worker households? How about women seeing more role models and acceptance into multiple fields?

I want to see data showing that women score 1 standard deviation below on standardized tests compared to men, but are admitted at higher rates to schools because of AA.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Ezekiel2517

Anesthesiologist
15+ Year Member
Jan 21, 2005
1,086
1,674
CA
Status
  1. Attending Physician
What you're missing is that all of these stupid trivial little things are the raindrops that make the flood. I'm perplexed and mildly annoyed because some of the people steering the woke left are C R A Z Y. That one of the "action items" to come out of a series of focus groups and diversity meetings was to rename (and break, at least temporarily) a bunch of printers because of master/slave terminology that merely reflects their LITERAL relationship on the network is just a symptom.

And yeah, I'm kind of joking with the whole thing. Kind of an incredulous head-shaking laugh, but a laugh all the same.



You didn't name them, but I'm going to assume by "western chauvinists" you're referring to the Proud Boys. I do basically agree with one of their fundamental position statements, namely that they are "proud and unabashed proponents of western civilization." I think western secular democracy is superior to the kind of theocratic or kleptocratic totalitarianism many parts of the world endure, and I don't feel the least bit ashamed to declare that the cultures that embrace those systems are inferior to mine. They are, by any objective measure of personal freedom, economic opportunity, physical security, you name it.

I think the only good Communist is one who was, moments ago, comfortably sitting in a helicopter. Nazis should be hung.

Now, many of those Proud Chums are obviously saying those words in a manner and context that includes some dog-whistley and not-so-subtle white supremacist meaning. And yeah, those guys suck. Racists and white supremacists are bad people. If you're a racist N-hating piece of trash looking for some like-minded pals, that organization is probably fertile ground to search.

All conspiracy theories are idiotic. I don't know what else to say about what I think about that.


As for Jew/Nazi/bourgeoisie/Communist analogies, yes, I think those analogies are strained. (Any analogy involving Hitler is more or less by definition at least a little hyperbolic.) However when it comes to the lived experiences of people who hail from such places and have endured such regimes, I'm inclined to look beyond the hyperbole for what wisdom of experience may lie behind it.



Why do you think Biden lost ground (compared to Clinton 2016) with the Cuban-American vote in Florida? Why did these brown people vote for a racist? Could it be that there's something in their lived experience that makes them wary of what the Democratic party says is good for America? Maybe they see something they've seen before.
Regarding the Cuban-American vote, I thought this thread from right after the election (by a Cuban American from Miami) provided good insight. Also, one thing to note is that many Cuban-Americans actually consider themselves to be "white". The US is just one of many countries throughout the world with a history of class systems deeply rooted in colorism and racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

DocMcCoy

SDN Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 4, 2009
881
309
San Angelo, TX
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I laid it out pretty extensively and your response before was a trite "So, yes?" without ONCE AGAIN addressing any specific points. Although I do recall you threw in a "well I'm sure I could put in context or say why the 15 obviously racist trump statements weren't actually racist," but you didn't. Because you can't.

And very simply, the trump voter does boil down to 1. Actively supports trump's racist rhetoric or policies or 2. Actively ignores or euphemizes trump's racist rhetoric and policies in service of something else, even though they know better. Number 2 is worse in some ways by nature of its cynicism and the way moral decision making works. As an example, @BLADEMDA in his own words said that he believes trump is a criminal and will likely be prosecuted once he leaves office....and he voted for him anyway. This is a different (and in some ways worse) moral choice than say Matty who genuinely believes in his heart of hearts that trump is squeaky clean and the second coming of mother Theresa.

The mountain of evidence of trumps racism already exists and it's called these last four years (and actually 40 yrs). You're welcome to bury your head in the sand because it deeply pains you to think that you're supporting a racist, but you are. And as I mentioned before (but of course you didnt respond to) an army of conservatives and Republicans have said the same thing.

"As he stumbled away, one couldn’t help but be reminded of Trump’s racist 2016 attacks aimed at Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. The then-candidate said he couldn’t trust Curiel because he was “Mexican,” but Curiel is an Indiana native; his parents immigrated there from Mexico before he was born. Republican politicians responded strongly to the Curiel attacks. Maine Sen. Susan Collins said they did not “represent our American values”; Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said Trump’s comments were “the literal definition of racism”; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declared that the words did “not [reflect] well on us as a nation; and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan called Trump’s attack on the Indiana judge a “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

As for your meanderings about "defense mechanisms" you should've stuck to your initial statement that you're no psychiatrist, because you really don't know what you're talking about. My position on the apparent support or ignorance by trump's base of his racism has been consistent since 2016. It's consistent now, and it'll be the same in 2022 or 2024 no matter what the political landscape looks like. What you don't get is that there is occasionally more to politics than just your side winning, which is why one of the taglines of all the McCain-fan nevertrumpers like Steve Schmidt is country before party. I honestly don't care a lick for Biden and the typical neoliberals that have come to dominate the democratic party, and I was prepared to write-in Bernie or Warren until just a few months ago. I didn't get to vote for my first choice because your choice was just so crushingly awful that a third party vote was not the best thing imo for the country. But don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask lean-libertarians or lean-conservatives like @pgg or @VA Hopeful Dr why they didn't vote for trump even though trump's policies likely aligned slightly more with their political interests.


I really want to let this ish go and move on it’s been like 3 days but...

Both of your views of the Trump voter implies racism. The onus isn’t in proving Trump is a racist. It’s proving your conclusion that me and the 47% are.

Or you can just say we aren’t and we can move on.

And since I apparently have to respond to your army of conservatives comment... Trump had had the overwhelming support of the GOP since 2016. And has had what only 2 sitting republican senators call him out on his election tactics? You’ve personally acknowledged this. Don’t act like Lincoln project never trumpers make up some huge slice of the GOP. again, all of this is irrelevant ie I don’t ******* care. If you think trump is racist I’m not going to fight you on that. But I’ll de da-m-d if I’m going to let you call me one.


*superfluous paragraphs.
*throw away opinion piece attached to vaguely prove my point
*charts and graphs
*snarky yet witty personal attack
*finishes beer

And scene.
 

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,454
9,254
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I really want to let this ish go and move on it’s been like 3 days but...

Both of your views of the Trump voter implies racism. The onus isn’t in proving Trump is a racist. It’s proving your conclusion that me and the 47% are.

Or you can just say we aren’t and we can move on.

And since I apparently have to respond to your army of conservatives comment... Trump had had the overwhelming support of the GOP since 2016. And has had what only 2 sitting republican senators call him out on his election tactics? You’ve personally acknowledged this. Don’t act like Lincoln project never trumpers make up some huge slice of the GOP. again, all of this is irrelevant ie I don’t ******* care. If you think trump is racist I’m not going to fight you on that. But I’ll de da-m-d if I’m going to let you call me one.


*superfluous paragraphs.
*throw away opinion piece attached to vaguely prove my point
*charts and graphs
*snarky yet witty personal attack
*finishes beer

And scene.

You don't have to respond to anything, and indeed for the most part you haven't since that would've actually required engaging on a specific point instead of mostly responding with a general "nuh uh" and rolling your eyes like a petulant teenager.


I'll say it for you one more time as simply as I can. If one votes for an obvious racist like trump, for the most part it can really only imply one of two things about the voter:

1. You explicitly or implicitly support his racist rhetoric and actions

-As an explicit example, consider when Andrew Anglin, founder of The Daily Stormer says: “Jews, Blacks and lesbians will be leaving America if Trump gets elected—and he’s happy about it. This alone is enough reason to put your entire heart and soul into supporting this man.”​
-As an implicit example, consider the redhats who cheered trump on when he told suburban housewives that "Cory Booker and low income housing" were coming for them, or when he called African countries "sh!tholes," or when he told four Congresswomen of color to "go back" to the countries they came from (ignore for a second the fact that three of them were actually born here). The "low income housing" or "sh!tholes" or "go back" or even Obama birth certificate statements had no explicit mention of race or biology, but I think we're all pretty good at spotting dogwhistles by now.​

2. You are willfully choosing to ignore his racist rhetoric and actions

-You, forty-some cowardly GOP senators worried about their political lives, and a big chunk of that 47% are just looking the other way. I'm sure you find the support trump has from The Daily Stormer or David Duke horrific, but they're such a small percentage of trump's base that you probably don't think about them or their comments that much. And I would bet you think there are better or more effective ways for trump to address the squad (perhaps on the issues) rather than with coded language about their origins or ethnic heritage. And I bet you think the "Judge Curiel can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage" thing - which you still have not even acknowledged - is a one-off, so you either have ignored or maybe just don't know that trump doubled down on it over and over again. And for all I know, perhaps you think that when trump goes around calling the coronavirus "KUNG FLU" it's friggin' hilarious and *just* a joke.​

It's great and all that you're appealing to trump's high approval rating within the GOP as if it's some kind of retort against my point, but I'm guessing you're only doing that because you're unaware of what an argumentum ad populum is. The number of people within the group of nevertrumpers or the Lincoln Project is irrelevant- their arguments and the fact that they're making those arguments against trump from a conservative perspective are what matters. Liberals get stereotyped as being too quick to call people racists, but it's a bit more difficult to apply that stereotype to former Northern FL GOP congressmen or John McCain's campaign manager. Again, I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that 70 million people could hold quite despicable views or be able to so easily ignore the quite despicable views of our nation's leader, but America unfortunately has set this precedent over and over throughout her history.

But ultimately, is being in the second category listed above as bad as being Andrew Anglin? No. Is it synonymous with being a racist? No. What it is is a usurping of any kind of principles just to get what you want, or as @Mad Jack more eloquently put it: "a more calculated sort of awful"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,206
69,820
4th Dimension
Dems always have to be mindful of their base, which are black folks, and more specifically black women. They’ll never win without them, and to be honest, it made it interesting why Kamala didn’t do better than she did in the primaries but it just shows that black voters are calculated and not monolithic voting block. I’d be shocked if there were ever a successful far-left candidate because most black voters aren’t far left which combined with many moderate Democrats in general, we’ll keep running mostly moderate candidates. If someone like Klobuchar gets her candidacy together and gets more appeal with black voters, she could be the first female President, unless someone like Nikki Haley can really find a way to reach out to black voters.
The trouble with Kamala is that she's a former prosecutor with a pretty horrific record that shows she values her career over justice. She may be black, but she essentially built a career out of destroying communities of color, and my bet is that didn't play all too well with black voters, but that's just speculation

 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,206
69,820
4th Dimension
You don't have to respond to anything, and indeed for the most part you haven't since that would've actually required engaging on a specific point instead of mostly responding with a general "nuh uh" and rolling your eyes like a petulant teenager.


I'll say it for you one more time as simply as I can. If one votes for an obvious racist like trump, for the most part it can really only imply one of two things about the voter:

1. You explicitly or implicitly support his racist rhetoric and actions

-As an explicit example, consider when Andrew Anglin, founder of The Daily Stormer says: “Jews, Blacks and lesbians will be leaving America if Trump gets elected—and he’s happy about it. This alone is enough reason to put your entire heart and soul into supporting this man.”​
-As an implicit example, consider the redhats who cheered trump on when he told suburban housewives that "Cory Booker and low income housing" were coming for them, or when he called African countries "sh!tholes," or when he told four Congresswomen of color to "go back" to the countries they came from (ignore for a second the fact that three of them were actually born here). The "low income housing" or "sh!tholes" or "go back" or even Obama birth certificate statements had no explicit mention of race or biology, but I think we're all pretty good at spotting dogwhistles by now.​

2. You are willfully choosing to ignore his racist rhetoric and actions

-You, forty-some cowardly GOP senators worried about their political lives, and a big chunk of that 47% are just looking the other way. I'm sure you find the support trump has from The Daily Stormer or David Duke horrific, but they're such a small percentage of trump's base that you probably don't think about them or their comments that much. And I would bet you think there are better or more effective ways for trump to address the squad (perhaps on the issues) rather than with coded language about their origins or ethnic heritage. And I bet you think the "Judge Curiel can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage" thing - which you still have not even acknowledged - is a one-off, so you either have ignored or maybe just don't know that trump doubled down on it over and over again. And for all I know, perhaps you think that when trump goes around calling the coronavirus "KUNG FLU" it's friggin' hilarious and *just* a joke.​

It's great and all that you're appealing to trump's high approval rating within the GOP as if it's some kind of retort against my point, but I'm guessing you're only doing that because you're unaware of what an argumentum ad populum is. The number of people within the group of nevertrumpers or the Lincoln Project is irrelevant- their arguments and the fact that they're making those arguments against trump from a conservative perspective are what matters. Liberals get stereotyped as being too quick to call people racists, but it's a bit more difficult to apply that stereotype to former Northern FL GOP congressmen or John McCain's campaign manager. Again, I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that 70 million people could hold quite despicable views or be able to so easily ignore the quite despicable views of our nation's leader, but America unfortunately has set this precedent over and over throughout her history.

But ultimately, is being in the second category listed above as bad as being Andrew Anglin? No. Is it synonymous with being a racist? No. What it is is a usurping of any kind of principles just to get what you want, or as @Mad Jack more eloquently put it: "a more calculated sort of awful"
Trump certainly has a lot of racist supporters, but they're not everyone that supports him. The average Trump voter isn't going home to hang out on The Daily Stormer or Stormfront. But Trump has not rebuked these acolytes of his, nor has he discounted the Qanon cultists. Those that have voted for him vote for him in spite of his history, generally, not because of it. White Evangelical Christians showed up in enormous numbers to support him on an unprecedented scale this election. Why? Because he's actually carried through on pushing to overturn RvW. They've made the calculated decision that his racism doesn't matter to him as much as what they view as innocent lives. Trump also got larger shares of minority voters by a good amount than last election. Why? Not because he's racist. Because they don't like the increasingly liberal policies of the Democrats. Most minority cultures in the United States are very conservative and patriarchal, and the Democrat's white affluent liberal playbook is getting a bit too culturally divisive for some of their taste. This is just based on the analysis I've read. The problem is, most of these people fail to see Trump as the serious danger he is to our democratic process and our nation's future, treating him as just another candidate when he is far, far more dangerous. The damage his current lame duck shenanigans are doing in sabotaging our nation's economy and international relations, as well as his bringing into doubt the entirety of our democratic process without any shred of tangible proof in a manner that would be called an attempt at a soft coup of any other nation's leader were doing it, should be proof enough that he only cared for himself and not this nation the entire time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
About the Ads

chocomorsel

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
5,173
4,052
somewhere always warm
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Trump certainly has a lot of racist supporters, but they're not everyone that supports him. The average Trump voter isn't going home to hang out on The Daily Stormer or Stormfront. But Trump has not rebuked these acolytes of his, nor has he discounted the Qanon cultists. Those that have voted for him vote for him in spite of his history, generally, not because of it. White Evangelical Christians showed up in enormous numbers to support him on an unprecedented scale this election. Why? Because he's actually carried through on pushing to overturn RvW. They've made the calculated decision that his racism doesn't matter to him as much as what they view as innocent lives. Trump also got larger shares of minority voters by a good amount than last election. Why? Not because he's racist. Because they don't like the increasingly liberal policies of the Democrats. Most minority cultures in the United States are very conservative and patriarchal, and the Democrat's white affluent liberal playbook is getting a bit too culturally divisive for some of their taste. This is just based on the analysis I've read. The problem is, most of these people fail to see Trump as the serious danger he is to our democratic process and our nation's future, treating him as just another candidate when he is far, far more dangerous. The damage his current lame duck shenanigans are doing in sabotaging our nation's economy and international relations, as well as his bringing into doubt the entirety of our democratic process without any shred of tangible proof in a manner that would be called an attempt at a soft coup of any other nation's leader were doing it, should be proof enough that he only cared for himself and not this nation the entire time.
So.... are you now saying that you regret voting for this certifiable full blown narcissist? Based on your last two lines?
 

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,238
2,624
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Southpaw

SDN Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Aug 12, 2004
2,199
3,186
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?

Well that's the calculation they've made. And honestly it doesn't matter much whether they support(ed) Biden a week ago, today, or months from now. They'll face no repercussion with their electorate by not working with Biden at any point.
 

chocomorsel

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
5,173
4,052
somewhere always warm
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I can't figure out why you'd think @pgg or @Mad Jack would vote for Trump. Read their posts a little.
Sorry. The back and forth that Vector had was with @DocMcCoy. I was thinking of him. Didn’t see who actually typed it and thought it was him.
And I already addressed the situation with @pgg already.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2020
101
151
Status
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?
Fake News. This ruling was all part of the plan. Checkmate liberals! NEW: The Trump campaign responds to today’s Pennsylvania court ruling: “Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court ... We’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly.” - TheDonald
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Southpaw

SDN Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Aug 12, 2004
2,199
3,186
Status
  1. Attending Physician
The trouble with Kamala is that she's a former prosecutor with a pretty horrific record that shows she values her career over justice. She may be black, but she essentially built a career out of destroying communities of color, and my bet is that didn't play all too well with black voters, but that's just speculation


Harris has no chance to win a presidential election in this country. I defended her a little when she was first picked, but honestly I think she was a bad choice. She didn’t help, and almost surely hurt, Biden in the swing states most of which he won anyway because Trump is so freaking awful. The honest truth is there appeared to be too much pressure from Democrats to pick a black female.

If the DNC plan, or Biden’s plan, is to support the current VP in the next election then Kamala was a bad, bad choice. She has no chance in WI, MI, PA, AZ, or FL. And in my opinion OH is firmly red unless Kasich runs as a Democrat.

Klobuchar would have been a better pick. She would’ve helped Biden in the blue wall, and she would at least have a fighting shot against Nikki Haley in 4 years.

In my opinion due almost exclusively to the actions of Trump we are in for a long, hard 4 years. The economy is on the verge of failure. More and more people are filing for unemployment. A Republican Senate will play politics and work against Biden to make things worse. It could get really ugly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,238
2,624
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Here’s an article that tries to “sum up” the evidence that AA has benefitted white women the most.


I don’t see a shred of evidence in it - basically the argument is that white women have attained better representation in schools and workplaces in the same time period AA was implemented. We all know that’s a super-weak correlation. How about major changes in society since the 80s requiring 2–worker households? How about women seeing more role models and acceptance into multiple fields?

I want to see data showing that women score 1 standard deviation below on standardized tests compared to men, but are admitted at higher rates to schools because of AA.

Thanks for sharing the article, I read it.

To be clear, I didn’t say it benefited white women the MOST. I just said it also benefits white women. It specifically added gender as a factor back in the 70s. Increasing diversity also looks at things like disability and veteran status. Those all also benefit white people as well.

So I was specifically replying to your comment that "AA discriminates against white people" because that’s not the whole truth when it also benefits white people as well.

As far as your standard deviation "proof" from standardized tests, that data won’t be available. Jobs for example don’t often look at standardized tests scores for hiring. I’ve never actually worked for a federal contractor or subcontractor before but I have looked at jobs and applications and it didn’t ask for my SAT scores (that I don’t even remember since that was such a long time ago). So if that’s the only way you’ll come to an understanding that affirmative action has benefited white women, white disabled people, etc, then you’ll likely never understand.
 
About the Ads

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Thanks for sharing the article, I read it.

To be clear, I didn’t say it benefited white women the MOST. I just said it also benefits white women. It specifically added gender as a factor back in the 70s. Increasing diversity also looks at things like disability and veteran status. Those all also benefit white people as well.

So I was specifically replying to your comment that "AA discriminates against white people" because that’s not the whole truth when it also benefits white people as well.

As far as your standard deviation "proof" from standardized tests, that data won’t be available. Jobs for example don’t often look at standardized tests scores for hiring. I’ve never actually worked for a federal contractor or subcontractor before but I have looked at jobs and applications and it didn’t ask for my SAT scores (that I don’t even remember since that was such a long time ago). So if that’s the only way you’ll come to an understanding that affirmative action has benefited white women, white disabled people, etc, then you’ll likely never understand.

Thanks for reading the article and having an open mind. I’m also open to hearing this evidence people keep referencing that AA has significantly benefitted white women — is there anything beyond speculation or weak correlation of trends??

I think it’s almost impossible to argue AA doesn’t significantly penalize INDIVIDUAL poor whites and Asians. The argument is always that whites/Asians as a group are doing fine. However, if you look at the tables I posted that’s a pretty big individual barrier to overcome in hard numbers (especially for anyone who doesn’t have resources and is the wrong skin type).

I’m pretty sure if we said that blacks with WAY higher test scores (2-3 standard deviations) were admitted to schools at a lower rate than Asians, or that Harvard across tens-thousands of application rated black “personality” scores 25% lower than Asians, on average — this would be taken as pretty ironclad evidence of racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,206
69,820
4th Dimension
Harris has no chance to win a presidential election in this country. I defended her a little when she was first picked, but honestly I think she was a bad choice. She didn’t help, and almost surely hurt, Biden in the swing states most of which he won anyway because Trump is so freaking awful. The honest truth is there appeared to be too much pressure from Democrats to pick a black female.

If the DNC plan, or Biden’s plan, is to support the current VP in the next election then Kamala was a bad, bad choice. She has no chance in WI, MI, PA, AZ, or FL. And in my opinion OH is firmly red unless Kasich runs as a Democrat.

Klobuchar would have been a better pick. She would’ve helped Biden in the blue wall, and she would at least have a fighting shot against Nikki Haley in 4 years.

In my opinion due almost exclusively to the actions of Trump we are in for a long, hard 4 years. The economy is on the verge of failure. More and more people are filing for unemployment. A Republican Senate will play politics and work against Biden to make things worse. It could get really ugly.
Yeah, it's going to be quite bad. And Harris doesn’t have what it takes to win, but you know how the DNC works. They're a bunch of out of touch mostly white old people who look at her and just see "black woman" and thus "perfect candidate to energize women and black voters." The don't even consider that voters might look beyond her gender and race and evaluate her terrible past with regard to both minorities and families. The DNC is its own worst enemy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users

Arch Guillotti

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Aug 8, 2001
8,453
3,255
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Harris has no chance to win a presidential election in this country. I defended her a little when she was first picked, but honestly I think she was a bad choice. She didn’t help, and almost surely hurt, Biden in the swing states most of which he won anyway because Trump is so freaking awful. The honest truth is there appeared to be too much pressure from Democrats to pick a black female.

If the DNC plan, or Biden’s plan, is to support the current VP in the next election then Kamala was a bad, bad choice. She has no chance in WI, MI, PA, AZ, or FL. And in my opinion OH is firmly red unless Kasich runs as a Democrat.

Klobuchar would have been a better pick. She would’ve helped Biden in the blue wall, and she would at least have a fighting shot against Nikki Haley in 4 years.

In my opinion due almost exclusively to the actions of Trump we are in for a long, hard 4 years. The economy is on the verge of failure. More and more people are filing for unemployment. A Republican Senate will play politics and work against Biden to make things worse. It could get really ugly.
Klobuchar seems decent, practical type. Kind of annoying though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,206
69,820
4th Dimension
Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.
Every analysis I've ever looked at basically showed that it discriminates against Asians in academia. Whites actuality benefit from it, even men, because Asians are held to so much higher of a standard due to higher average scores. It's likely Asians would comprise around 50-60% of medical school seats if admissions were race blind.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,238
2,624
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Rep Anthony Sabatini from Florida has tweeted "Kyle Rittenhouse for Congress."
Yes he's referring to the 17 yo who has been accused of murdering 2 protestors and injuring another with a gun after he crossed state lines.
And yet the "radical left" is seen as crazy. Hmmm.
 
  • Angry
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

nimbus

Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 14, 2006
6,894
8,946
Status
Every analysis I've ever looked at basically showed that it discriminates against Asians in academia. Whites actuality benefit from it, even men, because Asians are held to so much higher of a standard due to higher average scores. It's likely Asians would comprise around 50-60% of medical school seats if admissions were race blind.

In reality, there are so few URM in medical school before or after AA that it’s effect on White or Asian enrollment is a statistical rounding error. The data post Prop 209 in California reflects this.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Yeah, it's going to be quite bad. And Harris doesn’t have what it takes to win, but you know how the DNC works. They're a bunch of out of touch mostly white old people who look at her and just see "black woman" and thus "perfect candidate to energize women and black voters." The don't even consider that voters might look beyond her gender and race and evaluate her terrible past with regard to both minorities and families. The DNC is its own worst enemy
Kamala has a lot going for her so much so that she has a lot going against her with regards to the next cycle. She's basically getting on the job training and we'll see how people respond. I have no problem agreeing that things were forced down Biden's throat. Black women are an important part of the democratic electorate and it was calculating that he would pick a black female VP. That's not to say he wouldn't have won if he picked Klobuchar. I think he would've and probably pretty soundly but the electorate that would've moved the needle in that instance would've been the white suburban women, especially across the upper Midwestern states.

Kamala's problem has always been that she isn't very strong on presenting her stance on issues. Anyone who followed her through the primaries knows she can be very flippant which can be a turn off. Moveover, in the eyes of the southern and midwestern voters she can be seen as another liberal Californian which those words alone will turn people the other way. If she's going to be successful, she's going to need to shore up her political stances and turn herself into an Obama-esque politician. She can do it but there's some labels that she's going to have to work to shed over the next four years. I almost guarantee you the candidate Biden wanted was Stacey Abrams because she's loved by the black electorate and not seen a radical by white voters. I have my theories on why she wasn't chosen.
 

Splenda88

2+ Year Member
Jan 22, 2019
2,951
2,751
Status
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Kamala has a lot going for her so much so that she has a lot going against her with regards to the next cycle. She's basically getting on the job training and we'll see how people respond. I have no problem agreeing that things were forced down Biden's throat. Black women are an important part of the democratic electorate and it was calculating that he would pick a black female VP. That's not to say he wouldn't have won if he picked Klobuchar. I think he would've and probably pretty soundly but the electorate that would've moved the needle in that instance would've been the white suburban women, especially across the upper Midwestern states.

Kamala's problem has always been that she isn't very strong on presenting her stance on issues. Anyone who followed her through the primaries knows she can be very flippant which can be a turn off. Moveover, in the eyes of the southern and midwestern voters she can be seen as another liberal Californian which those words alone will turn people the other way. If she's going to be successful, she's going to need to shore up her political stances and turn herself into an Obama-esque politician. She can do it but there's some labels that she's going to have to work to shed over the next four years. I almost guarantee you the candidate Biden wanted was Stacey Abrams because she's loved by the black electorate and not seen a radical by white voters. I have my theories on why she wasn't chosen.
Any democrat would be painted as a leftist regardless who the democrat is. Even Joe Manchin can be painted as a liberal leftist... If Biden was painted as a communist in south FL by a guy who sent love letter to Kim Jong-un, any democrat can be painted as marxist..
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
In reality, there are so few URM in medical school before or after AA that it’s effect on White or Asian enrollment is a statistical rounding error. The data post Prop 209 in California reflects this.
What people who just can't stop mentioning AA don't realize is that it is here to stay in some form it's just that term itself will be illegal, which is fine with me. There will always be someone with a lower test score that gets into U Texas over the 4.0 / perfect SAT student because admissions panels will find another way to keep their student populations they way they want to see them. Even if "affirmative action" is found unconstitutional, it's be hard to to a school to court because someone didn't get in and though they should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
Kamala has a lot going for her so much so that she has a lot going against her with regards to the next cycle. She's basically getting on the job training and we'll see how people respond. I have no problem agreeing that things were forced down Biden's throat. Black women are an important part of the democratic electorate and it was calculating that he would pick a black female VP. That's not to say he wouldn't have won if he picked Klobuchar. I think he would've and probably pretty soundly but the electorate that would've moved the needle in that instance would've been the white suburban women, especially across the upper Midwestern states.

Kamala's problem has always been that she isn't very strong on presenting her stance on issues. Anyone who followed her through the primaries knows she can be very flippant which can be a turn off. Moveover, in the eyes of the southern and midwestern voters she can be seen as another liberal Californian which those words alone will turn people the other way. If she's going to be successful, she's going to need to shore up her political stances and turn herself into an Obama-esque politician. She can do it but there's some labels that she's going to have to work to shed over the next four years. I almost guarantee you the candidate Biden wanted was Stacey Abrams because she's loved by the black electorate and not seen a radical by white voters. I have my theories on why she wasn't chosen.

I just wish Biden would have said “I’m going to pick the best person for the job” even if he picked Harris or Abrams in the end.

By promising beforehand to pick a black woman — just seems to make that person the “token” dems want to hold up to bargain for votes in certain demographics. Bad move - sort of like AA actually does the opposite of what they meant.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,160
1,441
Visit site
Status
What people who just can't stop mentioning AA don't realize is that it is here to stay in some form it's just that term itself will be illegal, which is fine with me. There will always be someone with a lower test score that gets into U Texas over the 4.0 / perfect SAT student because admissions panels will find another way to keep their student populations they way they want to see them. Even if "affirmative action" is found unconstitutional, it's be hard to to a school to court because someone didn't get in and though they should.

You could be right. On the other hand, you are assuming that admission committees and employers actually all believe that giving a “boost” to certain skin colors is ethical or Laudable goal. Right now if they strike down AA and say it’s illegal to consider skin color in admission and jobs, some of the people making the decisions will likely stop towing the party line when they have law to back them up. They may even report schools/companies that secretly have systems to support quotas (I’m guessing there are internal memos all over America that could cost institutions monetarily if AA was explicitly illegal).

What the law says actually does make a difference when there are a number of people with differing opinions making decisions.
 

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
Any democrat would be painted as a leftist regardless who the democrat is. Even Joe Manchin can be painted as a liberal leftist... If Biden was painted as a communist in south FL by a guy who sent love letter to Kim Jong-un, any democrat can be painted as marxist..
No one is saying the electorate, both Democrat and Republican, is very smart. I believe that was discussed a few pages ago. The real truth is that there are far more centrist Democrats than there are centrist Republicans. Plus anyone who has a shred of political knowledge knows the Manchin isn't anywhere near a liberal Democrat, especially if you pay attention to his voting record, but most voters don't pay attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

DocMcCoy

SDN Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 4, 2009
881
309
San Angelo, TX
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Sorry. The back and forth that Vector had was with @DocMcCoy. I was thinking of him. Didn’t see who actually typed it and thought it was him.
And I already addressed the situation with @pgg already.

IF there is no peaceful transition of power, we end up in a civil war, the sky really does start to fall, I will absolutely regret my vote. Maybe I’m and ignorant optimist but we will drive on.

I don’t understand and frankly find it incredibly ironic that someone would make it their personal vendetta in this thread (not you) to stamp out literally any positive talk of GOP or Trump through some twisted association fallacy -that is a divisive fools errand.

If you are demanding every Trump voter repent in order to move forward, we are doomed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Twiggidy

Manny Rivers Cuomo
5+ Year Member
Jan 13, 2015
3,736
4,356
I just wish Biden would have said “I’m going to pick the best person for the job” even if he picked Harris or Abrams in the end.

By promising beforehand to pick a black woman — just seems to make that person the “token” dems want to hold up to bargain for votes in certain demographics. Bad move - sort of like AA actually does the opposite of what they meant.
While it certainly has aspects of a "token pick" it was also 100% political strategy, much in the same way McCain chose Palin. He got a big bump after he chose her as a running mate, the problem was afterwards she stared giving interviews.
You could be right. On the other hand, you are assuming that admission committees and employers actually all believe that giving a “boost” to certain skin colors is ethical or Laudable goal. Right now if they strike down AA and say it’s illegal to consider skin color in admission and jobs, some of the people making the decisions will likely stop towing the party line when they have law to back them up. They may even report schools/companies that secretly have systems to support quotas (I’m guessing there are internal memos all over America that could cost institutions monetarily if AA was explicitly illegal).

What the law says actually does make a difference when there are a number of people with differing opinions making decisions.
I think you're missing the point a bit. Most colleges and universities actually LIKE diverse student populations. (I'm pulling that from thin air a bit but I'm sure if I looked up some polls or essays from Dean's and Professors I could find it) The will find ways to get the student populations they want without even mentioning race and the same will go for employers. So what I keep saying is, while anti-AA will be able to have their win when the term is illegal, but they shouldn't expect to see any dramatic changes. Ivy league schools will still accept students without perfect ACTs and 4.0s and reject students with the same stats. Certain universities and companies just simply want their campuses to look a certain way and have a certain feel because some actually believe diversity is a good thing.

We can do the song and dance all day, What I'm saying is that SCOTUS will make "the term" illegal, but the admissions panel at Harvard and Columbia will still admit whoever they want based on whatever they want and yeah, it'll likely be an unspoken "wink wink" type thing.


Also, I notice above you disregarded the "white women benefit" of AA
How California's 'woman quota' is already changing corporate boards | CalMatters

Of course this has already drawn lawsuits, but please please remember that AA isn't just about dark skinned faces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Southpaw

SDN Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Aug 12, 2004
2,199
3,186
Status
  1. Attending Physician
IF there is no peaceful transition of power, we end up in a civil war, the sky really does start to fall, I will absolutely regret my vote. Maybe I’m and ignorant optimist but we will drive on.

I don’t understand and frankly find it incredibly ironic that someone would make it their personal vendetta in this thread (not you) to stamp out literally any positive talk of GOP or Trump through some twisted association fallacy -that is a divisive fools errand.

If you are demanding every Trump voter repent in order to move forward, we are doomed.

You didn't outright say this, but divisive in my mind is alluding to civil war to regret voting for Trump. I'm sorry but politics and sidedness has its limit. I would absolutely vote for a Republican over any type of Democrat who acts and especially governs like Trump. And I'm saying that before he started really trampling on our democracy with his post-election antics.

Both you and @pgg have stated we will transition and move on peacefully. It's true. We will. I have no doubt. But two things can be true at the same time. Our democracy can be irreperably damaged and we can move on peacefully. If enough of America doesn't trust our election process, or accepts and supports someone openly attempting to subvert it, then in my opinion our democracy is irreperably damaged. And we can move on but we will also have lost a peace of ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads