Trump's First 100 Days

[GMDino]

(02-16-2017, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We agree that he is egoistical and narcissistic.

We disagree that he is stupid and didn't know April Ryan and her resume.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/media/omarosa-april-ryan/

Omarosa knowing her proves nothing else.

Also he only know what "he's been told" so I doubt he knows that much about Ryan.

But then I'm only basing this on his general lack of knowledge about anything specific as shown over and over when he he asked specific questions and tries to answer them.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/16/flynn-replacement-harward-rejects-offer/98016616/

Quote:Robert Harward, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, has turned down President Trump's offer to become the next national security adviser, he told The Associated Press Thursday.

“It’s purely a personal issue,” the retired vice admiral told AP. “I’m in a unique position finally after being in the military for 40 years to enjoy some personal time.”

Harward, 60, had been widely reported as the favorite to replace former general Michael Flynn, who resigned Monday, after misleading Vice President Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Harward said that since retiring from the military he has been able to "address financial and family issues" in a way that would not be possible if he accepted the president's offer, according to a statement from Harward shared by CNN's Jake Tapper. "Like all service members understand, and live, this job requires 24 hours a day, 7 days a week focus and commitment to do it right. I currently could not make that commitment."
[/url]

Vice Admiral Harward statement: pic.twitter.com/Vxfh1Ub4l6

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 17, 2017

The retired Navy SEAL may be enjoying life in the private sector but he also turned down the White House's role over concerns that he would not have full say over the composition of his staff, The Washington Post, CBS News and The Financial Timesreported, citing unnamed sources.
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-harward-turns-down-national-security-adviser-job/]
According to CBS, Trump insisted that Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland be allowed to stay on, and Harward refused to retain the former Fox News analyst and Flynn hire.

Harward, currently a senior executive at Lockheed Martin, also cited the apparent lack of organization within the Trump White House, FT reported.

“Harward is conflicted between the call of duty and the obvious dysfunctionality,” FT quoted the unidentified person as saying.

One unnamed friend of Harward told CNN that the former SEAL referred to Trump's offer as a "s--- sandwich."

Another source told The Financial Times that Trump is still working to persuade Harward to take the position. He asked for him to return to the White House for another meeting, according to FT.

Former lieutenant general Keith Kellogg took over as the acting national security adviser after Flynn's resignation. Retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus is reported to be another top candidate for the position.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2017, 11:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Omarosa knowing her proves nothing else.

Also he only know what "he's been told" so I doubt he knows that much about Ryan.

But then I'm only basing this on his general lack of knowledge about anything specific as shown over and over when he he asked specific questions and tries to answer them.

Okey Doke. You go with the assumption that Trump didn't know who April Ryan was and I'll go with the assumption that he did.

[GMDino]

(02-17-2017, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. You go with the assumption that Trump didn't know who April Ryan was and I'll go with the assumption that he did.

I guess you just enjoy be wrong then?

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 04:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess you just enjoy be wrong then?

No one enjoys being wrong. Even before she asked her question they had a back and forth that showed a degree of familiarity. You think you are right in assuming Trump didn't know who she was and I think I'm right in assuming he knew who she was.

It just makes it easier to paint him a racist if we assume he simply asked her if she were friends with the BCB simply because she was black. Some folks are triggered to see color first.

[hollodero]

(02-16-2017, 05:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet some will view this as an opportunity to paint trump a racist.

I'd agree, that is thin. The better way to paint him a racist still is the creation of the very racially inclined birther movement. Whenever Obama is called a Kenyan muslim, it's the direct consequence of Mr. Trumps efforts, and there's no reason I can see to call that consequence unintended. I do not like to throw the term around lightly, but that is a racist move.
Then there's follow-ups. Implying a judge is biased cause he has a Mexican name, that muslim wifes of US citizens might not be allowed to talk, not renting to black people in 1973 (yeah, others were racist at that time, too). Then there's not knowing David Duke, which makes the claim he doesn't know people far more believable - or the claim he doesn't know David Duke unbelievable - but one of those two things. He connects Mexican immigrants to crimes they bring to the country and makes up with a pic of him grinning in front of a taco bowl, because, well, that's how Mexicans roll. He chose the jewish star as symbol for corruption. Oh and there's Steve Bannon.

And from that on, things - all things - appear in a different light. Which is to be expected. And it's not liberal butthurt or being close-minded, but a very well argueable deduction. 
To counter that? He himself said he is the least racist person people have EVER SEEN. (Everyone else is more racist than him, then, which is an absurd claim and hence an absurd defense), and he has great connections to the black community. So there's that, the black friends.

A racist running for president could probably not behave any more racist without losing even anti-liberal non-racists like yourself. This was the outsider's perpective. Carry on.

[NATI BENGALS]

Of all the things to happen so far Scott Pruitt being confirmed as the head of the EPA is the most disheartening to me.

The man works for the fossil fuel industry. He doesn't care about the environment.

While this bag of shit was suing the EPA multiple times his state saw an insane rise in earthquakes that were more than likely caused by man.

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 05:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd agree, that is thin. The better way to paint him a racist still is the creation of the very racially inclined birther movement. Whenever Obama is called a Kenyan muslim, it's the direct consequence of Mr. Trumps efforts, and there's no reason I can see to call that consequence unintended. I do not like to throw the term around lightly, but that is a racist move.
Then there's follow-ups. Implying a judge is biased cause he has a Mexican name, that muslim wifes of US citizens might not be allowed to talk, not renting to black people in 1973 (yeah, others were racist at that time, too). Then there's not knowing David Duke, which makes the claim he doesn't know people far more believable - or the claim he doesn't know David Duke unbelievable - but one of those two things. He connects Mexican immigrants to crimes they bring to the country and makes up with a pic of him grinning in front of a taco bowl, because, well, that's how Mexicans roll. He chose the jewish star as symbol for corruption. Oh and there's Steve Bannon.

And from that on, things - all things - appear in a different light. Which is to be expected. And it's not liberal butthurt or being close-minded, but a very well argueable deduction. 
To counter that? He himself said he is the least racist person people have EVER SEEN. (Everyone else is more racist than him, then, which is an absurd claim and hence an absurd defense), and he has great connections to the black community. So there's that, the black friends.

A racist running for president could probably not behave any more racist without losing even anti-liberal non-racists like yourself. This was the outsider's perpective. Carry on.

Given he doesn't carry around a bottle of hot sauce with him everywhere he goes; but we could probably paint anyone racist if we tried. We have folks in this very thread trying to race-bait and it is sad. We have to decide for ourselves if we think this POTUS is a racist and we can find numerous reasons to support our stances.

I think the birther movement was motivated more by his father being Kenyan and his listed birthplace outside CONUS more so that because Obama was black. The Muslim slant had more to do with the name that skin-color. Do you think anyone would have accused Herman Cain of being born in Kenya or a Muslim? it's just simplier to cry racist.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-17-2017, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Given he doesn't carry around a bottle of hot sauce with him everywhere he goes; but we could probably paint anyone racist if we tried. We have folks in this very thread trying to race-bait and it is sad. We have to decide for ourselves if we think this POTUS is a racist and we can find numerous reasons to support our stances.

I think the birther movement was motivated more by his father being Kenyan and his listed birthplace outside CONUS more so that because Obama was black. The Muslim slant had more to do with the name that skin-color. Do you think anyone would have accused Herman Cain of being born in Kenya or a Muslim? it's just simplier to cry racist.  

Did Trump accuse Ted Cruz of being born in Kenya or being Muslim?

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did Trump accuse Ted Cruz of being born in Kenya or being Muslim?

Great point. Thank for the back up Breech. He pointed to him being Canadian and it had nothing to do with race:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/15/trump-unleashes-on-cruz-threatens-eligibility-lawsuit-over-alleged-lies.html


“He doesn’t even have the right to serve as president, or even run as president. He was born in Canada. So I will bring that lawsuit if he doesn’t apologize,” Trump told reporters at a press conference.

[hollodero]

(02-17-2017, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Given he doesn't carry around a bottle of hot sauce with him everywhere he goes; but we could probably paint anyone racist if we tried.

If Trump had made a hot sauce comment, I would not have listed it here. That was just a stupid thing to say for her and indeed nothing more (imho, all imho). I would not make the racism case because the underlying history just isn't there. I was not a Hillary fan, but calling her racist has no grounds.
Calling Trump racist has grounds, and it's because it's not an equivalence. And maybe "we" could paint anyone racist, but I couldn't. I couldn't paint Hillary racist. I couldn't paint you racist. Not just because I'm too nice of a guy, but just because I love to have some kind of at least half-solid case.
I do believe I have that with Trump.
There was an interesting, yet quickly forgotten moment in one of the debates with Hillary. When racism came up, he did not even make an effort to deny it. His whole response was you're just as bad, don't go with that holier than thou attitude. Maybe it doesn't mean much. I remembered that as strange.
He might really just think everyone is racist, and because he's such a tremendous guy everyone else is just even more racist than him. "I'm the least racist person you'll ever meet." Maybe there's more to that than just strange bragging, and he might not be that complex.
I see my list (plus all the additional things) and think about his attitude and it fits. And I believe the assumption that Trump has racist attitudes to be as objective as possible. No party interests here.

(02-17-2017, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We have folks in this very thread trying to race-bait and it is sad. We have to decide for ourselves if we think this POTUS is a racist and we can find numerous reasons to support our stances.

I don't think they are just race-baiting or that this is a fair evaluation of their motives. Given they see things similar to me.

(02-17-2017, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the birther movement was motivated more by his father being Kenyan and his listed birthplace outside CONUS more so that because Obama was black. The Muslim slant had more to do with the name that skin-color.

Well. Couple things.
First and foremost, it having to do with the name doesn't really make it so much less racist, does it?
Second, Mr. Trump not only created the movement (not him alone, ok), but never cared the tiniest bit about it becoming a pool for undeniably proven racists, that hated Obama for being black and used his being muslim as an equivalency of him being evil. You can see them on the comments boards, they are plenty. All that happened, all that was in the very core of the birther movement, and Mr. Trump was not opposed, did not distance himself, never stood up against it, all those years.
With what the birther thing had to do in the very beginning? I do not really believe the most harmless of explanations (it was a pretty shabby move at the very least), but it doesn't really matter. What matters it what the movement became under the direct aid of Mr. Trump.

(02-17-2017, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think anyone would have accused Herman Cain of being born in Kenya or a Muslim? it's just simplier to cry racist.  

I really don't know. And I do not grasp the point.

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 06:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: If Trump had made a hot sauce comment, I would not have listed it here. That was just a stupid thing to say for her and indeed nothing more (imho, all imho). I would not make the racism case because the underlying history just isn't there. I was not a Hillary fan, but calling her racist has no grounds.
Calling Trump racist has grounds, and it's because it's not an equivalence. And maybe "we" could paint anyone racist, but I couldn't. I couldn't paint Hillary racist. I couldn't paint you racist. Not just because I'm too nice of a guy, but just because I love to have some kind of at least half-solid case.
I do believe I have that with Trump.

Hillary and many of the libs are akin to slave owners. They placate the minorities to keep them under their control. Hill's hot sauce comment was an example. And of course you would have placed the Hot Sauce comment here is Trump would have made it; as you freely posted about his taco bowl. What is it you said? That's how they roll. Just as you most likely would have used the following quote to solidify the Trump is a racist stance:

"Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."

Quote:There was an interesting, yet quickly forgotten moment in one of the debates with Hillary. When racism came up, he did not even make an effort to deny it. His whole response was you're just as bad, don't go with that holier than thou attitude. Maybe it doesn't mean much. I remembered that as strange.
He might really just think everyone is racist, and because he's such a tremendous guy everyone else is just even more racist than him. "I'm the least racist person you'll ever meet." Maybe there's more to that than just strange bragging, and he might not be that complex.

So you're really using that someone called him a racist and he didn't reply with a "No I'm not" as proof he's a racist?

Quote:I see my list (plus all the additional things) and think about his attitude and it fits. And I believe the assumption that Trump has racist attitudes to be as objective as possible. No party interests here.

Of course it's no political interest; it's simply the fact that you are a liberal. 

Quote:I don't think they are just race-baiting or that this is a fair evaluation of their motives. Given they see things similar to me.

Of course you don't think they're race-baiting as you've already come to the conclusion that he's a racist

Quote:Well. Couple things.
First and foremost, it having to do with the name doesn't really make it so much less racist, does it?
Second, Mr. Trump not only created the movement (not him alone, ok), but never cared the tiniest bit about it becoming a pool for undeniably proven racists, that hated Obama for being black and used his being muslim as an equivalency of him being evil. You can see them on the comments boards, they are plenty. All that happened, all that was in the very core of the birther movement, and Mr. Trump was not opposed, did not distance himself, never stood up against it, all those years.
With what the birther thing had to do in the very beginning? I do not really believe the most harmless of explanations (it was a pretty shabby move at the very least), but it doesn't really matter. What matters it what the movement became under the direct aid of Mr. Trump.

Of course the name matters. Ask yourself (no answer required because I know what it will be): What assumption would you make about someone named Barak Hussain Obama?
Every time Trump has been called to denounce (which carries its own stupidity) someone proven racist; he has done so. As Breech was kind enough to post he did the same thing with Cruz. Is he racist toward Canadians? he just doesn't have the PC filter turned on.  

Quote:I really don't know. And I do not grasp the point.

They are black. If he started the birther movement strictly because of color then why didn't he do it when Cain was opposing Obama or when Carson was opposing him?

[GMDino]

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hillary and many of the libs are akin to slave owners. They placate the minorities to keep them under their control. Hill's hot sauce comment was an example.

She sure is racist.

You want to be taken seriously after that?

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 07:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: She sure is racist.

You want to be taken seriously after that?

You can take me however you choose (that's what I told her). 

I don't think Hillary is racist; I think she understands the niche and will do all she can to exploit it. I know it's most likely a difficult concept to grasp but many slave owners were most likely not racist. it's just the way things were done. Just like things are done a certain way today to obtain a vote. 

[hollodero]

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hillary and many of the libs are akin to slave owners. They placate the minorities to keep them under their control. Hill's hot sauce comment was an example.

Yeah... you lost me on that one. That doesn't make too much sense and I actually think you'd like to review that. And it does sound a bit like you would call her racist now.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And of course you would have placed the Hot Sauce comment here is Trump would have made it; as you freely posted about his taco bowl. What is it you said? That's how they roll.

I freely posted that because it was not a single incident, but part of a pattern.
If it were a single incident and Mr. Trump didn't have the history he had, I probably would have given the same evaluation as I did with the Hillary sauce comment: Stupid. Irrelevant.
With Hillary, it's not part of a pattern. It's this and a rather obscure claim that she is akin to a slave owner because she ran for president and went for the black votes.
In a logical consequence, you could say Trump is less racist than Hillary because he focused on the white votes.
Go there or rethink?

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just as you most likely would have used the following quote to solidify the Trump is a racist stance:

No I wouldn't.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're really using that someone called him a racist and he didn't reply with a "No I'm not" as proof he's a racist?

No, not proof. More of a clue.
I even think he really believes he is "the least racist person anyone's ever gonna meet". That his self-glorification hides his own racism from himself by him thinking everone is worse than Donald the Great. Might be.
What makes you so sure he isn't racist?

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it's no political interest; it's simply the fact that you are a liberal. 

I feel you equate being Anti-Trump with being "liberal". I do not even know exactly what that means for an European. We don't really have that here.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you don't think they're race-baiting as you've already come to the conclusion that he's a racist

That's right. So did they, and it's not "sad" or out of the line to share these thoughts and observations. I said I think this particular case is thin. Another example I would not put on my list. But I don't think race-bait is a fair evaluation, as if it were just a crude liberal game towards a completely innocent man. If you think it's just that, I think you're not being very open-minded.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the name matters. Ask yourself (no answer required because I know what it will be): What assumption would you make about someone named Barak Hussain Obama?

Yeah I would think he's a muslim.
And when he ran for president, at some point I would probably have informed myself, I would have learned that he's not, and at this point I would have friggin stopped to think or publicly say it. I mean, really.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every time Trump has been called to denounce (which carries its own stupidity) someone proven racist; he has done so. As Breech was kind enough to post he did the same thing with Cruz. Is he racist toward Canadians? he just doesn't have the PC filter turned on.  

No, he just wanted to slam Cruz. That doesn't really prove anything though. It wouldn't make up for addressing some black guy with a racial slur if you found a white guy and gave him a racial slur afterwards. Not that I equate it; I just want to show why I think it's absurd to use the Cruz example to deny the racism in the birther movement.
Again, the latter went on for years and became a platform for anti-muslim anti-black anti-Obama hate speech, and Mr. Trump and his racist birther supporters continued his brave work of delegitimizing the president nevertheless and without any concern about that racist base. He was a racist's hero for that and he at least didn't mind.
I don't really know if you want to strike a blow for members of the birther movement or people that called Obama a Kenyan muslim. If you don't want to do that, you can't let Trump get away with at least a stain.

(02-17-2017, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They are black. If he started the birther movement strictly because of color then why didn't he do it when Cain was opposing Obama or when Carson was opposing him?

I don't know. I didn't say "strictly", I don't know why he started it, I said starting it was at the very least a shabby move and that's that. 

You want to prove that it's more because of the name and not so much because of the skin color? Well, I can only repeat, that really doesn't make it less racist. The period where ignorance is an excuse (but he's called Hussein!") was a very short one. By repeating the kenyan muslim sentiment a person is either utterly ignorant or putting out a deliberate lie on grounds of bias against muslims, blacks or black muslims or whatever. Either way, racist.

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 10:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah... you lost me on that one. That doesn't make too much sense and I actually think you'd like to review that. And it does sound a bit like you would call her racist now.


I freely posted that because it was not a single incident, but part of a pattern.
If it were a single incident and Mr. Trump didn't have the history he had, I probably would have given the same evaluation as I did with the Hillary sauce comment: Stupid. Irrelevant.
With Hillary, it's not part of a pattern. It's this and a rather obscure claim that she is akin to a slave owner because she ran for president and went for the black votes.
In a logical consequence, you could say Trump is less racist than Hillary because he focused on the white votes.
Go there or rethink?


No I wouldn't.


No, not proof. More of a clue.
I even think he really believes he is "the least racist person anyone's ever gonna meet". That his self-glorification hides his own racism from himself by him thinking everone is worse than Donald the Great. Might be.
What makes you so sure he isn't racist?


I feel you equate being Anti-Trump with being "liberal". I do not even know exactly what that means for an European. We don't really have that here.


That's right. So did they, and it's not "sad" or out of the line to share these thoughts and observations. I said I think this particular case is thin. Another example I would not put on my list. But I don't think race-bait is a fair evaluation, as if it were just a crude liberal game towards a completely innocent man. If you think it's just that, I think you're not being very open-minded.


Yeah I would think he's a muslim.
And when he ran for president, at some point I would probably have informed myself, I would have learned that he's not, and at this point I would have friggin stopped to think or publicly say it. I mean, really.


No, he just wanted to slam Cruz. That doesn't really prove anything though. It wouldn't make up for addressing some black guy with a racial slur if you found a white guy and gave him a racial slur afterwards. Not that I equate it; I just want to show why I think it's absurd to use the Cruz example to deny the racism in the birther movement.
Again, the latter went on for years and became a platform for anti-muslim anti-black anti-Obama hate speech, and Mr. Trump and his racist birther supporters continued his brave work of delegitimizing the president nevertheless and without any concern about that racist base. He was a racist's hero for that and he at least didn't mind.
I don't really know if you want to strike a blow for members of the birther movement or people that called Obama a Kenyan muslim. If you don't want to do that, you can't let Trump get away with at least a stain.


I don't know. I didn't say "strictly", I don't know why he started it, I said starting it was at the very least a shabby move and that's that. 

You want to prove that it's more because of the name and not so much because of the skin color? Well, I can only repeat, that really doesn't make it less racist. The period where ignorance is an excuse (but he's called Hussein!") was a very short one. By repeating the kenyan muslim sentiment a person is either utterly ignorant or putting out a deliberate lie on grounds of bias against muslims, blacks or black muslims or whatever. Either way, racist.

I can see this is going nowhere, just a bunch of yes you would, no I would not. Folks can read the comments of each and determine which one approached the subject with the more open mind. You wouldn't have brought up the hot sauce comment if Trump would have made it, but you brought up the Taco Bowl comment because Trump made it. And somehow I'm the one not making sense. 

[hollodero]

(02-17-2017, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can see this is going nowhere, just a bunch of yes you would, no I would not. Folks can read the comments of each and determine which one approached the subject with the more open mind.

Fair enough.

(02-17-2017, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You wouldn't have brought up the hot sauce comment if Trump would have made it, but you brought up the Taco Bowl comment because Trump made it. And somehow I'm the one not making sense. 

Just to let truth be truth, I brought up the Taco Bowl within a certain context and I also brought up several additional points I emphasized way more intense on. While you brought up hot sauce and an obscure slave-owner comparison.
And for the record, I think you just weaseled out of that discussion. But yeah, folks can determine.

[NATI BENGALS]

Today our president told us the media was our enemy. And not long after quoted Rush Limbaugh to prove he was awesome.

We are screwed big league. Im talking russian hooker water sports type screwed.

[Dill]

(02-17-2017, 10:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: bfine32 Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-First-100-Days?pid=345701#pid345701][/url]Hillary and many of the libs are akin to slave owners. They placate the minorities to keep them under their control. Hill's hot sauce comment was an example.

Yeah... you lost me on that one. That doesn't make too much sense and I actually think you'd like to review that. And it does sound a bit like you would call her racist now.

LOL, he is not going to "review" that comment, Hollo, but I might clear up the mystery for you.

It has been a feature of U.S. political discourse since 1865 that right wingers oppose any diversion of tax money into programs that help minorities--especially African-Americans. 

This opens them to charges of racism of course. They didn't care back in the '50-60s, when they were still openly fighting for segregation, but in the '70s, the charge became a liability, so they developed ways of deflecting it--mostly by reversing the charge, insisting that somehow liberals and Democrats were the "real" racists because they assume blacks could not help themselves. Think here of George H.W. Bush's reference to "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

In the mid '70s, an additional feature was added to this "reverse racism," namely that Democrats wanted to keep blacks on public assistance to get their votes. As the Latino vote became important in the 1980s and '90s, they too were added to the mix of supposed "government dependent" voters aligned with the Democrats. No wonder Dems protect illegals and are lax on immigration--more future Democratic voters!

So the claim becomes Democrats WANT to keep minorities poor and dependent upon government--supposedly the purpose of housing and welfare programs--so they will keep voting Democrat, and you can see how analogy is constructed--Dems are like planation owners who want to keep minorities ignorant and under their control. Thus the people who sought consistently to create a level playing field for African-Americans become the "real racists" while the people who deny structural racism continues in U.S. institutions and the economy become "post-racist"--lampooned by Stephen Cobert's bit, in which he would ask plainly black people to identify their race because, as he put it, "I can't see race."

This does not fool the majority of African-Americans who still vote 90% Dem and it probably does not fool many whites, either, but it offers some plausible deniability regarding support for the party which has, since the 1970s,  subsidized farmers and corporations, while doing its best to reduce money targeting minorities.

Final point--this is a "bubble" argument. You hear it on Fox and Talk radio. Outside of the bubble it has no traction. It is not part of any serious policy debate in universities or respectable think tanks.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2017, 01:00 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, he is not going to "review" that comment, Hollo, but I might clear up the mystery for you.

It has been a feature of U.S. political discourse since 1865 that right wingers oppose any diversion of tax money into programs that help minorities--especially African-Americans. 

This opens them to charges of racism of course. They didn't care back in the '50-60s, when they were still openly fighting for segregation, but in the '70s, the charge became a liability, so they developed ways of deflecting it--mostly by reversing the charge, insisting that somehow liberals and Democrats were the "real" racists because they assume blacks could not help themselves. Think here of George H.W. Bush's reference to "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

In the mid '70s, an additional feature was added to this "reverse racism," namely that Democrats wanted to keep blacks on public assistance to get their votes. As the Latino vote became important in the 1980s and '90s, they too were added to the mix of supposed "government dependent" voters aligned with the Democrats. No wonder Dems protect illegals and are lax on immigration--more future Democratic voters!

So the claim becomes Democrats WANT to keep minorities poor and dependent upon government--supposedly the purpose of housing and welfare programs--so they will keep voting Democrat, and you can see how analogy is constructed--Dems are like planation owners who want to keep minorities ignorant and under their control. Thus the people who sought consistently to create a level playing field for African-Americans become the "real racists" while the people who deny structural racism continues in U.S. institutions and the economy become "post-racist"--lampooned by Stephen Cobert's bit, in which he would ask plainly black people to identify their race because, as he put it, "I can't see race."

This does not fool the majority of African-Americans who still vote 90% Dem and it probably does not fool many whites, either, but it offers some plausible deniability regarding support for the party which has, since the 1970s,  subsidized farmers and corporations, while doing its best to reduce money targeting minorities.

Final point--this is a "bubble" argument. You hear it on Fox and Talk radio. Outside of the bubble it has no traction. It is not part of any serious policy debate in universities or respectable think tanks.

It's almost like the Dems pushed the Civil Rights Act. Nah, that wasn't them as they already had the right to vote before that.

But stand by for: "The parties switched". Even though a republican has never gotten more than 40% of the Black vote since they started keep stats (1930s)