Candidate Tim Scott Faces 'The View'
Tim Scott goes off on The View:
His is the right perspective.
GAHe is such an impressive individual. So even tempered and intelligent.
I would not call it going off. I call it putting one-in-ones using perfect decorum, showing a calm normal temperament, and well-spoken words to put her in her place.
I have not witnessed much of the above in a very long time. I agree this is the right perspective.
On another note --- so pleased to see a new thread posted here on HP's that is current, and I might add an interesting subjectSince I am not voting for Biden, Trump, or DeSantis and watching The View's YouTube video of Tim Scott on their show I placed him in my "I will consider list" to keep an eye on. Nikki Haley and Asa Hutchinson are on that list for now too. We'll see what happens in the months ahead. Otherwise as with the last two elections, right now, I will vote for Teddy Roosevelt again.
The Views' YouTube video of the Scott's interview gives much greater context to Tim Scott's interview on The View. I liked it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Rh4y0NCjI
When there are no doubts or questions about what you know is true, deep at your core, you get the temperament of a Tim Scott.
My home state of South Carolina is honored to have him. He would make an excellent President.Well, gang, let me be the first to congratulate Senator Scott, yes, he is an extraordinary man and politician. How he is able to be black and Republican in a crimson red state like South Carolina is beyond me. It is a high wire act akin to the best of Ringling Brothers and Barnum Bailey performances. But, Black voters are going to vote their interests and the Republicans have not been on board so Senator Scott will have to contend with a black electorate within the state known to give 85 percent of its allegiance to Democrats, regardless of his color. If he is not a Trump toady, he is a Republican apologist. But, I know for white conservative oriented minds, Scott’s story would be comforting, a warm fuzzy as it were. It is designed to tickle their ears. But that is OK, I understand.
So lets look at Senator Scott’s story. He talks about progress measured in generations. Whose generations? It is a hurdle that whites did not have to contend with, this endless waiting. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 basically said that “negroes had no rights that the white man need to respect”. Outside of not being slaves, I can’t imagine his grandfather’s basis for optimism.
He himself mentioned being treated worse than a rabid dog, using public thoroughfare. So, how much time, energy, talent and resources have been needlessly stolen? It is 1921. We had the white instigated race riots destroying a relatively prosperous black community in Tulsa OK. We the had Rosewood, Florida massacre of black people in 1923. This grandfather would have to had been illiterate not to have known that lynchings were not uncommon during the period. He had a Washington DC re-segregated by the Wilson Administration. He had a congress that wrangled over Anti-lynching legislation. Hiding behind states rights, as if the rule of law did not apply to people of color. Granddaddy has his loyalties misplaced, instead of accommodating, I would have been agitating or relocating. There was no reason to believe any of these things were going to get better from that perspective. So what is all this faith in God and the American people stuff?
If I saw, for example, the stark difference in net worth between black families and white families at least moderate to an extent beyond the 10 to 1 ratio, maybe I would have cause for optimism as well. Then, I can see the exception becoming less the exception becoming more common and would allow me room to acknowledge that progress is going in the right direction.
So, NO, it is not the right perspective…."If I saw, for example, the stark difference in net worth between black families and white families at least moderate to an extent beyond the 10 to 1 ratio, maybe I would have cause for optimism as well."
How much has it changed in just your lifetime? 10-1 from 100-1? 1000-1? I think it would pay you to look at more recent times than the 1890's or early 1900's - you will see a tremendous change in just your own lifetime.
But it isn't enough to recognize, is it? It isn't perfect (and never will be), so it's still equivalent to 1900.Why do you pull numbers from the sky? What do you know when you cant back your comments with responsible statistical data?
The "change" needs to be far more encompassing. I guess it has been "perfect" enough for you and yours, So I guess the rest of us are to just stand and wait?
No, that won't do. 10 to 1 is an unacceptable ratio. So, no, I am not satisfied. And any candidate, black or white, that I vote for had better not be satisfied either.I didn't pull numbers to offer them as truth; I asked you what they were when compared to 120 years ago.
No, 10-1 is not sufficient, and black people have a long way to go. A long way that they will have to work on that level playing field without demanding that they be put on a different, easier level than anyone else.
But the entire point of my post is that you always revert to a century ago as if there has been no improvement, as if no one has tried, as if conditions are unchanged from a century ago. It isn't true, not in the slightest.But the entire point of my post is that you always revert to a century ago as if there has been no improvement, as if no one has tried, as if conditions are unchanged from a century ago. It isn't true, not in the slightest.
You're right. Conditions are have changed.
It is the racist minds that havent.
black people have a long way to go. A long way that they will have to work on that level playing field without demanding that they be put on a different, easier level than anyone else.Wow, so it sounds as if you, Island, believe that it has to be stacked for some, in order for things to be equal?
"No, 10-1 is not sufficient, and black people have a long way to go. A long way that they will have to work on that level playing field without demanding that they be put on a different, easier level than anyone else."
--------
Wilderness, Yes, that is the conservative attitude.
Yes, when you were robbed, raped and pillared, a disadvantage bore over a considerable period of time, that would be a circumstance that none of you would acknowledge nor even begin to appreciate.
But, in the face of that reality that you, yourself, make quite clear, can I, at least, ask conservatives and their enablers, black or white, to spare me from having to listen to all their fables and happy talk stories?
A "high wire act", what are you waiting for his big fall?
Scott is consistent, always has been. He isn't two-faced like Biden and other prominent Dems. One face for every crowd, no matter the crowd, knowing what he believes at his core...that's Tim Scott.
Not sure why that is so difficult for some to understand. You'd think everyone would find it commendable.Well, AB, we are going to have to disagree on that point of your perspective. Never said anything about his having an "accident" as part of his act. He simply does not and cannot have my support, can't offer a net if he tumbles....
It is a real shame that Scott "cannot have your support", because it consistently goes to the Dem Party, Biden and Company, etc.
This is how your response reads to me:
You praise Scott for his personal achievements and then criticize him as a Republican apologist. That implies he is insincere in his beliefs because they disagree with yours. He may not be a Trump Toadie, but he's still a Toadie—just to someone else (Republican apologist?).
The thoughts about his grandfather's perspective offer a comparison to speculate on. If Scott's grandfather had the mindset you describe as yours, would today's Tim Scott be the one we see? I don't think so.
I think he is the reasonable (your comment infers you also think he is reasonable) legislator of today because his grandfather let the chains of the past go when the physical chains were gone. His family looked to the future with hope, even while living in the reality of having to step off of the sidewalk. That attribute is passed on almost as surely as genes are.
In contrast, a grandfather of your perspective (resentment and anger from the past) isn't looking to the future with hope, he is looking to the past for retribution. That 'Tim Scott of today' would probably be just as smart and ambitious, but probably in the realm of extremism and activism — a promotor of difference rather than commonality.
I will still go with Scott's perspective.*
*This is all based on his town hall announcement and media presentations.
GAWe know, GA, that there are commendable points and things so commendable about everyone and anyone. I did not say that he was insincere, just wrong, in my opinion.
I would have not allowed myself to live in an environment where I was abused daily, and find ways to justify it or excuse it. I would not have had my sons and daughters tolerating such an environment. I just may have taken advantage of the "Great Migration" of blacks from the south during the 1st quarter of the twentieth century. If granddad had my perspective, I would dare to say that Senator Scott would have been better for it.
His grandad, whether the Senator admits it or not in 1921, was for all practical purposes still a slave with the chains removed. Hope has to have some grounded basis in reality to allow someone to remain in anticipation of a set of changed circumstances and conditions far outside the realm of daily experience.
Tim Scott did not not have to become a radical, but a realist and would not have to have sacrifice his intelligence and current demeanor.
I don't like that word 'hope' as used by conservatives, as it has always been an empty word synonymous with delay and denial, much like the idea of religion being the opiate of the masses....
I expect my candidate to deal with the reality of both acceptance and accommodation of what is different while finding the few common threads that bind us together as a people and nation state. Any black person knows tha activism has been part and parcel of any progress attained within this society and if Tim Scott does not recognize that, I certainly cant vote for him.
You do realize this man is very purple when it comes to his ideologies, and how he votes in the Senate? All the rest you have offered I am sure makes good sense to you, and your case is a good one. However, I ask please draw back and do some solid research on his past record in the Senate. This man appears to be almost down the middle.
When I chose a candidate to vote for, I look at their history, their work ethic, their ability to communicate, what are they offering in the way of policy, what are their ideologies. In some respect, Scott is one of the best I have researched in many, many years. We are still in a place where one's skin color matters, there is no denying that. Right or left have a name for Scott. Both in my view are derogatory, and one is not worse than the other. So, does Scott have a chance, most likely not? All due to "we the people" making simple judgments of him. Not taking the time to consider what he may offer or bring to the job of President of The US.
Let me share --- my daughter is very liberal, she feels Scott is an "Uncle Tom" (her words)... My reply to her was, why not use the N-word", it is just as insulting to a man that has strived to make something wonderful of himself. Food for thought.
Would you vote for Biden over Scott if you got the chance?Sharlee.
I am a Democrat well left past center, I could never vote for any Republican or support the party in the way its current agenda appears to present itself.
A hypothesis: there is no such thing as a "moderate Republican" in the era of MAGA preeminence.
Scott has only avoided being "primaried" as being too moderate because the Republicans recognize the propaganda value of having a Black representative giving the impression that they are a ethnically diverse party. Scott is exceedingly valuable in that role and worth retaining by Republicans for that reason.
We all strive to make something wonderful of ourselves, I have, but I don't think like Tim Scott.I accept your view in regard to Tim Scott, I don't agree with it, in any respect. So we are in a log jam.
So, do you support this current President and his policies? Do you support Biden in regard to his ability to do his job?Well, Sharlee, the question is relative. Esoteric brought out a few positive points regarding the economy, low unemployment, declining inflation rates, etc. That is the best possible and I will never see how any Republican can do better, as they are talented in making a bad situation worse.
Foreign policy is a choice between deserting the Ukraine to Putin or showing backbone and supporting the NATO alliance and keeping on the pressure against Moscow for as long as possible.
If I had any complaints about Biden it comes from his left flank, something you could not relate to...
He has the patience of Job, I would have not given the Republicans an inch in their attempt to extort the President and the administration over the debt ceiling. But that is the mark of a true statesman, getting the job done and avoiding the catastrophe of our default, regardless of who would be ultimately held accountable.Well ECO says a lot but rarely backs up his claims. The facts are the best way to judge unemployment and inflation, as well as a CPI.
June 2, 2223 Bloomberg
"US Labor Market Sends Mixed Signals, Giving Fed Reason to Pause
Payrolls surged in May, beating all estimates in survey
Unemployment rate rose saw biggest monthly rise since 2020"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … #xj4y7vzkg
I day ago NBC --- "Increases in Black unemployment are especially dire for Black women, experts say
The unemployment rate increased from 4.4% in April to 5.3% in May for Black women."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/inc … -rcna88018
Inflation --- "US Inflation Rate is at 4.93%, compared to 4.98% last month and 8.26% last year. This is higher than the long-term average of
3.28%. "
CPI --- "In April, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 0.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, and rose 4.9 percent over the last 12 months, not seasonally adjusted. The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.4 percent in April (SA); up 5.5 percent over the year (NSA)." https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Foreign policy --- Well one must look past where this administration wants you to look... Look here not there. I am sure you are aware of China's rattling chains, as well as many nations increasing trade with China. I don't think we have ever witnessed such a blunder as the way Biden pulled out of Afghanistan, against what his military aids suggested he do. -- "How China Overtook the U.S. as the World’s Major Trading Partner" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/p … istan.html
Biden resumed talks with Tehran aimed at reviving the Iran nuclear deal, which was repudiated by Trump. In this last case, he has signally failed, at least to date. Talks are moribund and Iran continues to expand its nuclear enrichment program
he has on several occasions broken with long-established U.S. policy and declared that the U.S. would intervene were Taiwan to be invaded by China.I think both you and Esoteric are to be credited with supporting yours and his relative positions in this forum with documented and responsible sources.
There is a no possibility of Biden and the Democrats being nothing but ogres in your eyes. While both I and Esoteric say the same about the Republicans and their candidates both past and present.
Based on these preferences or biases, if you will, what is the objective truth? Biden won election in 2020. So the objective truth, if there ever is one, can only be determined by the majority of voters taking into account all of their preferences and biases. You think there will be buyers remorse? Only 2024 will determine that.
I am not particularely upset or displeased with Biden as he works more toward my desired policy agendas and goals than any Republican could. So, I am not going to judge him from a platform of inerrant perfection. As much as I disliked Trump, I did not hold him to unreasonable nor unattainable standards. Your daughter has a mind of her own and she leans left for a good reason as do many others.
First of all, it was dumb for Trump to unilaterally destroy the agreement with Iran that Obama negotiated in 2015.
Yes, Biden takes a hit for the way the US extricated itself from Afghanistan. Such a move itself was controversial and long overdue and was not without error.
Yes, inflation is still an issue, but it would be dishonest to say that it was as dire as last year. My information on the proposed Social Security COLA projected for 2024 clearly reflects a downward trend in any inflationary adjustment.
Otherwise, you Republicans find yourselves in a quandary. You support a man with 7 federal indictments and one from New York. Let us see how that plays with electorate? What will be the excuse from the Right this time? Is it the deep state?
You were always saying let us follow the evidence, so I invite you to take your own advice regarding allegations regarding Biden during his term as Vice President. But, with Trump, being charged means that the bread crumbs are finally leading to a source.
What going to happen now Sharlee, Trump is surrounded by sharks and there is his blood in the water? He becomes a toxic candidate from any perspective. His executioners will continue to pretend that they are not interested in taking the crown and removing Trump from his throne?
It going to be interesting to see how MAGA can be balanced against common sense in the upcoming contest next year."I think both you and Esoteric are to be credited with supporting yours and his relative positions in this forum with documented and responsible sources."
Must partly disagree, he very rarely offers sources for his economic comments. He will add sources in regard to some of his political
views.
I think one needs to post stats when making a comment on economics. Things are far from rosy at this point.
In regard to my daughter --- "Your daughter has a mind of her own and she leans left for a good reason as do many others."
I could never fault her for her views, political or personal. I can and do fault her for labeling a man just because she can. Especially when the label is trending...
I tried to impress upon her that labeling a man that worked hard to get to where he is (be it with perhaps taking advantage of what, as she put it "the white man offered him") deserves credit.
I detest labeling, and being as I see obnoxious, just because we can. (not say my temperament does not have me doing this, with much regret as a rule.)
Let me simply remind you, I am not a Trump supporter for 2024, thus far my vote (after much research) would go to Scott. That could change as I look into other candidates. It is my hope Trump does not win the primary.
I was very pleased with Trump's job performance as president --- However, at this point, I feel he would cause more disruption if he became the President once again. I want someone that will fix the damage I have witnessed.I can't say the same Sharlee, not now, not after everything that the Dems {and Rinos} have put this man through!! It is a National disgrace!
My thoughts of supporting anyone else were fleeting.....I am catching the Trump train and I won't be alone!I have had to reconsider my use of Uncle Tom as of late. While I would have applied the title to Clerance Thomas and Tim Scott in the past, I came to realize that they may have a different perspectives on what constitutes Black progress than most of us share. Not that they are correct, but that does not make them adversaries, per se.
So, why go with Scott? You have DeSantis, Haley, etc...Scott is known for his down-the-middle conservative principles. His history shows his interests are tax reform, job creation, education, and criminal justice. I appreciate his focus on limited Government and economic growth. He stays away from all the hyperbolic issues of the day and I was impressed with his job performance in Congress. To be even more specific, I like that he has a personal background I respect greatly. He worked his way up. I respect his hard work, and what seem to be good values. He is reasonable and seems to possess great common sense. I note this in how he handles himself. He is not apt to tell every crowd what they want to hear. He shares perhaps his very own views, I like this in any human being. I don't think he should be labeled, to me he put great effort into becoming the man he is today.
We need different, this guy is different than the pack.As more of a spotlight is placed upon Scott, he will not be able to avoid weighing in on the hyperbolic issues of the day and that is where the rubber will meet the road….
Oh I agree, I hope his calm, intelligent, kind demeanor comes across as it did on the view. I think those qualities are innate in this man. Now, that is just pure intuition.
But, we both sort of know this man has a lot going against him, in his own party, and even the black community. He is already labeled. I guess he will be held up as an exception to the rule. Instead of a man that black citizens and most importantly children can be proud of.Deleted
His statements (as presented by the media and Google) don't appear to say he believes racism is essentially eradicated. They seem to say, overtly, that he thinks great progress has been made.
'Essentially eradicated' sounds like an opinion based on extrapolations of interpretations. Do you believe that great strides haven't been made?
GADeleted
One only needs to get the before and after sentences to put his words into context. Much of the media does not present full context.
again --- " I’ve been saying for a long time: America is not a racist country,” Scott said. “The question is, is there a lingering effect after a couple of centuries of racism and discrimination in this nation? The answer is absolutely. The question we should be debating and fighting over is how do we resolve those issues going forward. One side says, ‘I’m going to take from some to give to others.’ Fighting bigotry with bigotry is hypocrisy, it just doesn’t work.”An assumption is needed; that you do not agree with Scott's statement because there are still racists (and a lot of them) around.
That does not make America a racist nation. That simply means we still have idiots and malignant souls among us.
To consider whether the 'country' is racist requires that its actions, not the actions of individuals (or groups), be racist. Considering the civil rights and racial equity actions our country has taken in the last 60 years, I agree with Mr. Scott. We have been able to make those great strides in eliminating racism in the public realm because we are not a racist country. That we have not gotten rid of all racist individuals just means there is more to be done.
GA"That we have not gotten rid of all racist individuals just means there is more to be done."
We will never get rid of all racist individuals, particularly if you consider those with a religious bias, or a gender one, or any other bias that puts one group "above" another as "racist".
Not to say we should ever quit working on it, but it is a utopian fantasy to think we will ever completely succeed. Mankind will always form groups, and attempt to make their own chosen group better than the others. Whether Texans, Yankees, Liberals, rednecks or the rich city dwellers in their mansions, everyone will always consider their group superior and more deserving than the others.Yep, it is in our best interest to keep working for progress, but for all the reasons you mentioned, we will never reach it as long as we remain human. Of course, I won't, but I would not want to reach the final goal.
GA
Deleted
Ha! Have you seen the trending TV commercials for Kayak or Sling TV? "Just open your eyes! The proof is all around you! They are lying to you!"
My eyes are open Jim. I do run into racists and see racist behaviors. But I see a lot less than I saw in my teens. And a lot less in my midlife than I did in my twenties. And I see a lot less now than I saw in my middle-aged years.
In those same segments, I have seen structures of racism, from the highest level to the lowest, from government to business to fraternity, they have been lessened in the same progressive strides as the racism of our civil actions has.
That's the reality my open eyes see. There is no overthinking involved, it's just as you say, all you need to do is open your eyes to reality. Rational reality.
The manner of your Scott criticisms isn't rational. Extremes such as 'Uncle Tom' or trying to be 'white' are the fingers pointing back at you when you point one at someone else.
GADeleted
Again you use a media blurb and don't add full context tp Scott's words. So once again
"I’ve been saying for a long time: America is not a racist country,” Scott said. “The question is, is there a lingering effect after a couple of centuries of racism and discrimination in this nation? The answer is absolutely. The question we should be debating and fighting over is how do we resolve those issues going forward. One side says, ‘I’m going to take from some to give to others.’ Fighting bigotry with bigotry is hypocrisy, it just doesn’t work.”
The George Floyed Justice Policing Act was a bill that possessed severe government overreach. No Republican would have voted for such overreach. It is obvious Republicans are fully giant Federal Government overreach. The legislation was expansive, and would: Grant power to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to issue subpoenas to police departments as part of "pattern or practice" investigations into whether there has been a "pattern and practice" of bias or misconduct by the department.
Scott has very down-the-middle common sense solutions in regard to law enforcement. It would be nice if someone did some true research into this man's policies.
“Resurrecting the House progressives’ police reform bill is a nonstarter. I’ve been working toward common ground solutions that actually have a shot at passing. Solutions to increase funding and training to make sure only the best wear the badge. Solutions that would have made a difference in places like Memphis & Kenosha,” Scott
"The South Carolina senator said he believes Congress can “get something meaningful done” and pass a bill that the majority of Congress would agree on, but underscored he doesn’t think the House Democrats’ proposal could pass muster.
“The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we care more about tribalism, posturing, and preserving the status quo? Or do we care about actually doing our jobs and restoring faith in our nation? Put me down for the latter,” Scott said.
Did you read the bill? It was clearly one that conservatives would never approve of. Government overreach at its best. Literally, this bill took all powers from individual states."The question is, is there a lingering effect after a couple of centuries of racism and discrimination in this nation? The answer is absolutely."
------
Well that "lingering effect" packs quite a wallop. To downplay that is a disservice to us all.
"The question we should be debating and fighting over is how do we resolve those issues going forward."
We don't begin to resolve a problem conservatives consistently deny exist. Any man or woman, black or white that engages with that attitude certainly will not get my support.
You can tell Tim Scott that I care about justice and that his Booker T. Washington style of accomodation won't do.
'Uncle Rufas(?)' sounds worse than 'Uncle Tom.' Is that your view of Scott?
It also seems that you see any successful Black man that doesn't agree with your victimhood mentality as analogous to a 'house slave' of plantation times.
GAAgreed GA.
I have been given the same impression, while reading through the comments.
You cannot have a discussion with a person with this type of mentality/mindset. The conversation is over before it even begins.
Please give an example of the racism that is all around us...
Deleted
Your video gives no proof of any of its claims. My gosh anyone can make claims without adding proof they mean nothing. This video could be labeled propaganda due to just blurbs being offered without any sources.
Deleted
Deleted
From your first link above, black families earn less than white families. This gives rise to the question of "Why?", but the answer is not a simple "systemic racism" as you would have us all accept. Just a few of the questions that would need answered to find the real reason for the disparity:
Is it because more black families choose to be one parent and one age earner?
Is it because black families choose not have the education to do better, choose not to improve their skill set?
Is it because black workers choose to live in areas that pay less, and work where they live?
Is it because black workers choose to work fewer hours (one of the reasons women earn less than men)?
The question of "Why?" is far more complex than simply stating "It is systemic racism". The question of why women earn less is the same thing; women (as a group) choose lower paying jobs and choose not to work as many hours as men, resulting in a disparity of earnings with men - when comparing the same job and same hours they earn within a couple of percentage points what men do. It is most likely that there are many reasons for blacks to earn less, nearly all of which come down to personal choice, not racism.Deleted
You're still simply offering stats showing blacks are underperforming, without ever looking as to the "why" of it, simply insinuating that it is because of racism.
If better schools are needed, then parents get together and complain, PAYING for better schools and participating in them. Get out of the slums and into better living areas. If students get kicked out, parents must convince students to behave instead of simply saying it is racist to kick kids that are misbehaving out of school. If blacks and latinos attend high poverty schools, then move! - don't simply demand someone else pay for better schools. Same if you don't like being in a "racially concentrated district". If the kids don't graduate, parents need to spend more time with the kids, helping them to get through it and learn.
Again, almost all of these things are correctable...without resorting to claiming racism.
Nonsense, that cannot explain the universal disparity in wealth between white and black families. Remember the 10 to 1 ratio?
But you didn't answer any of the questions, just insinuate it is racism. Do you really believe that single parent homes should be as wealthy as two earner ones? Do you truly think that working at a MacDonalds in the slums should pay as much as a factory somewhere? Do you actually believe that uneducated, unskilled workers should earn what educated and highly skilled workers do?
Wilderness, I am listening.
Of course, you are right in your observation. I simply say that there is more behind the disparity than just blacks not pulling themselves up by their own boot straps. If you dispute this article and its contents, document your rebuttal with more than "your homegrown common sense".
-------
Here is the main point:
The wealth gap between Black and white Americans has been persistent and extreme. It represents, scholars say, the accumulated effects of four centuries of institutional and systemic racism and bears major responsibility for disparities in income, health, education, and opportunity that continue to this day.
Consider that right now the net wealth of a typical Black family in America is around one-tenth that of a white family. A 2018 analysis of U.S. incomes and wealth written by economists Moritz Kuhn, Moritz Schularick, and Ulrike I. Steins and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis concluded, “The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years.”
It’s no surprise. After the end of slavery and the failed Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, which existed till the late 1960s, virtually ensured that Black Americans in the South would not be able to accumulate or to pass on wealth. And through the Great Migration and after, African Americans faced employment, housing, and educational discrimination across the country. After World War II many white veterans were able to take advantage of programs like the GI Bill to buy homes — the largest asset held by most American families — with low-interest loans, but lenders often unfairly turned down Black applicants, shutting those vets out of the benefit. (As of the end of 2020 the homeownership rate for Black families stood at about 44 percent, compared with 75 percent for white families, according to the Census Bureau.) Redlining — typically the systemic denial of loans or insurance in predominantly minority areas — held down property values and hampered African American families’ ability to live where they chose.
------
So, the past is prologue....
Here is the article from Harvard University, you are free to take issue with it, but it had better be good.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … nequities/I'm sorry, Credence, but I'm not real interested in the distant past. Yes, it has certainly affected blacks today (and whites and all others) but it is over. We have different problems today, and to put the blame for the plight of black people in America square on Caucasians is simple racism and nothing more. The majority belongs to black people and the entitlement philosophy being preached and promoted today. BLM has added to the problem, not solved it, and it is not alone; the prevailing assumption of the WOKE crowd is that whites are responsible for all the ills of blacks and have no problems of their own. Blacks (and some other minorities) have tipped the playing field so far in their direction that it has become ridiculous and can (and will) lead to nothing but further division in our country. More hard feelings, more "tribalism", more separation between otherwise reasonable people.
IMO of course.Yes, in your opinion. Well I don't consider the 1960s the "distant past", my father was in housing market at that time. But you are free to make all the excuses you like, you usually do.
Not everything, but to say that racism had no role in all of this is a blatant fabrication. That is why we must continue to stay at odds politically and the controversy and agitation is to continue, unabated...."but to say that racism had no role in all of this is a blatant fabrication." (Credence)
"Yes, it has certainly affected blacks today (and whites and all others) but it is over." (Wilderness)
So much for saying racism played no part in what we see today. It did and still does, but it is a minor part of what plagues blacks today.Deleted
Many things. A high percentage of single parents. A willingness to live in the ghettos and slums. A refusal to gain education and a good skill set. A willingness to live off of charity. Children that receive little or no help with schooling. Schools that get little or no help from parents. A refusal to be "white", meaning to do the things that produce results and wealth. An entitlement philosophy that says someone else owes them for their lack of progress. A high percentage of children in gangs. A refusal to take risks, to remove themselves from an area with virtually no chance of improvement. A growing tendency towards racism, hating and blaming the white race for all the ills they see.
And yes, there is the remnant of racism in jobs, education and police interaction. Most of which will disappear if those other things are addressed and corrected.
But I'm pretty sure you're aware of the items in that first paragraph, even if you don't like to think they are causal from many of the problems blacks face today.So agree... Well said, and so brave to say it aloud.
Yes, WoW,
‘A willingness to live in ghettos or slums”
I can hear the “All in the Family” ditty in the background and see Archie Bunker in his white shirt and cigar ready to share morsels of wisdom with us all, very small morsels, I might add. I would have thought that even you would not go this low, but you have and you now call it straight talk?
I guess that those poor souls living in destitute conditions in Appalachia are there because they love it and don’t want to leave?
Economics explains many of the circumstances that right wingers in their eternal obtuse nature must seek an explanation for other than the “system” that they will defend as guiltless. These pie in the sky ideas of yours require wealth and money to attain to.
How do you know what remnants would disappear? You and the right wing community have been this way for decades and generations, I have no reason to believe that you would be any different now… You have to be the “case in point”
Is it typical right wing thinking paint a broad brush over the entire black community and say that they all live in the ghetto or all have ghetto values?Deleted
I have been saying that for a long time, but with conservatives it consistent fall upon deaf ears....
Bootstraps. As in the case of my close relative that just graduated college with two degrees...but was homeless and couchsurfing her last two years of high school? The one that made it out of high school and worked her way through college?
That kind of bootstrapping? Is that what you mean?
Cred, Wilderness was answering a question.
"What plagues blacks today?"
Which issue he listed does not plague Black People today? I think he offered a wide view. And much of what he said does plague black people today. In reality, in my view, these are issues that we still need to work on, don't you? So are the problems he listed not part of a segment of black society? If we can be truthful are they not? However, are these
problems less today than in the 60s? Perhaps we can come to admit there has been progress.Of course there has been progress. There are vastly more black people who have "Bootstrapped" out of poverty and a vastly higher percentage now live the American dream because of it.
Yet we are still where we were 50 or 100 years ago, and blacks still require someone else to lift them. I don't think so. We still have ugly racism around, but in amounts far, far less than we are led to believe. And we see more and more minorities becoming financially successful, whether the naysayers say it isn't so or not. It isn't very popular with the entitlement crowd to say so, but it is true.I agree, I feel we have come a long way from the 50s and 60s. I think you nailed it with your comment. Not to say it is not unfortunate, but I see the issues you offered are very on the money.
If you were not taking away, stealing, so much opportunity from us within a system of systemic racism over 100 years and longer, then maybe, just maybe we would have already had the boots to attach the bootstraps to.
Using what your ancestors did as an excuse for your own failings does not produce desired results.
I will start with the single mothers issue. I will have to take the hit on this one, while environmental circumstances made this outcome more likely, it remains our problem as black people to solve. There is a correlation between the fact that this circumstance is found in about 28 percent of white households, 19 percent of Asian, 66 percent of indigenous families, 53 percent of Hispanic families and 72 percent of black families. It tends to indicate that being socially and economically disadvantaged plays a role. The attitude of our women regarding finding men that can support themselves and a family has been a factor. There is deep psychological resentment and insecurity between male verses female, that has been tough to expose regardless of my research. It is like trying to peel the skin from an apple with my fingers to see what lies beneath. Everything points to the fact that two parent families are inherently more successful regardless of what single mothers say. The lack of which may well explain why so many negative characteristics are found within our communities.
Wilderness may not be right about many things very often, but I will give into him on this: It is our problem to solve.
I do know that it exists and racism is not to blame for the continued trend. I will give you that point. You might find the article of interest.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39993685Really interesting article.
"I will start with the single mother's issue. I will have to take the hit on this one, while environmental circumstances made this outcome more likely, it remains our problem as black people to solve. There is a correlation between the fact that this circumstance is found in about 28 percent of white households, 19 percent of Asian, 66 percent of indigenous families, 53 percent of Hispanic families and 72 percent of black families. It tends to indicate that being socially and economically disadvantaged
plays a role."
So, could better sex education help the situation? My older sister told me about the birds and the bees after my other sister found herself pregnant just after she graduated. My Mom could have never given the talk, and she was a well-educated woman, just prim and proper. My parents promoted marriage as a solution to my sister's problem. A marriage that failed.
IF Moms and Dads don't take the task up, our young have no idea about the results can be from making love.
So I feel the numbers could come down with better sex education. Many kids don't have parents that even approach the subject of sex. Hence more of our young turning up pregnant. It's as old as time. Hey, that ten-minute talk at twelve years old provided me the info I needed to make the choice of when I wanted children. My sister stepped in whereas my very proper mom did not.
So I support sex education and think it should be started at about 12.I wouldn't even say that, I think in this sex saturated culture most girls and boys know better. In this Internet age there are so many conflicting messages, more negative, regardless of formal instruction. One parent simply cannot attend to everything involved in bringing home the bacon, bringing up kids and seeing to their proper supervision and discipline.
It is not promiscuity, it is about fear of commitment. Our women have been exceeding our men in education and professional attainment. These women are not interested in men who are financially unstable and insecure, they have worked too hard. We take that to the point where attorneys, office managers, etc are not interested in relationships with bus drivers and janitors. On the other hand, the guys see the women as "full of themselves", and in the basic gender roles sort of thing, the guys feel just that more inadequate. Airing dirty laundry, but a lot of comes down to egos and insecurity.I could be very, very wrong, but I see it mostly as a result of a lack of responsibility. A lack by both men and women, for men abandon the result of their sex behind and women have sex with a man the often know will abandon them and their child. And both for unprotected sex; as you say these kids already know more than they need to on how to avoid pregnancy; they just don't care. Or, sometimes, want the child as a substitute for love or even just another method of increasing the money flow.
Whatever is going on in their minds, both sexes, responsibility for their actions is not a part of it.
"It tends to indicate that being socially and economically disadvantaged plays a role."
See, I believe you have it backwards; the socially and economic "disadvantage" comes from single parent families; those families are not happening because of an economic disadvantage. Being poor does not mean that men abandon families; men abandoning families means those families will be poor.
"These pie in the sky ideas of yours require wealth and money to attain to."
Yeah. Like the guy under a bridge I met. He was bicycling from Dallas to Seattle because he heard there was work there. Lots of wealth in his camping gear and bicycle.
"Is it typical right wing thinking paint a broad brush over the entire black community and say that they all live in the ghetto or all have ghetto values?"
Is that what you got out of a list of 11 things - that all blacks live in the Ghetto? You believe that I think Oprah lives in the ghetto, or Obama? C'mon, Credence - gave a list of problems that blacks face today, but that hardly means every one has every, or even a single one, of the potential problems.
Deleted
Just like Credence, you think I believe Oprah fits any of those, or Obama? Or any black person that has made it financially in our country? Hint: I don't. But those are some of the common problems that blacks face...while denying (just as you do) that they can't climb over them without someone else providing the means to do so.
"Why don't whites exhibit these circumstances at the same rate that plague the black race? What's the difference?"
Certainly I don't know the difference - perhaps you can tell me. Why do blacks have such a high percentage of single parent families? Why do so few attend college, given the plethora of scholarships and grants available? Why do they (metaphorically) spit on a fellow black that has done the things necessary to succeed? You tell me, for I surely do not know.
Deleted
Trump 2018 --- "Trump is right that African-American unemployment hit a record low in December. The unemployment rate for black Americans is currently 6.8 percent, the lowest level recorded since the government started keeping track in January 1972.
And he's also right that the Hispanic unemployment rate is down a point over the last year — it was at 4.9 percent in December, down from 5.9 percent in December 2016. That is close to a record low, though it's also up 0.1 point from November."
2019 --- Black unemployment in general under Trump
Black unemployment drops to the lowest level in recorded U.S. history, job numbers soar
https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa … fdad1.html
Even today we can see strides in Black employment. This is a positive. It says to me we are progressing with equality.
First I have not made the claim that racism does not occur. I am of the mind we have improved, and we still have a way to go. I did find that the charts in the Businessinsider were somewhat revealing, and gives me food for thought, in regard to employment stats for black citizens.
The employment-population ratio measures the share of a demographic group that has a job, and it's been lower for Black people for years.
The chart shows Blacks did well or I should say better under Bush and Trump What happened under Obama? I would think he would have had the best stats in regard to the higher employment of blacks. But the stats prove me wrong...
Not sure how one would go about knowing blacks were discriminated against in the job market in the past years. I mean we have no way of knowing the number that looked for jobs. SMH in regard to the low employment of blacks under Obama. Thanks for correcting my assumption.
This sort of data is not science fiction, Sharlee, it has been around for quite a while. Particularly the stuff about the name associated with employment or favorable consideration (black or white sounding names) or the rates and percentages of each group being accosting by the police.
I don't disagree that these kinds of issues or problems are prevalent in conversations, and I would not even disrespect anyone's feelings on the subjects offered in the video. My main point in this conversation is I feel the cup half full is more beneficial when it comes to working on racism.
It would seem in the past two years we have politicians that strive to point to the cup half empty. In my view, this leaves the work we have done in the past very unimportant.
Thus far this is my favorite Scott quote --- "Right now, we need to find our commonalities instead of focusing on our differences.”
“I know America is a land of opportunity, not a land of oppression. I know it because I’ve lived it,”
"“I’ve been saying for a long time: America is not a racist country,” Scott said. “The question is, is there a lingering effect after a couple of centuries of racism and discrimination in this nation? The answer is absolutely. The question we should be debating and fighting over is how do we resolve those issues going forward. One side says, ‘I’m going to take from some to give to others.’ Fighting bigotry with bigotry is hypocrisy, it just doesn’t work.”
I myself believe we have racism in America. But feel we have come a long way, and share Scott's views on racism.Deleted
" He would do much better out here if he would acknowledge the reality. "
Are you saying his view, what he has verbally shared is not his reality? Is it fair to judge him in this respect? Could he just have a different view than you?
Who has given this man prestige? It sounds like you are saying to become a successful Black person, a Black must take what a White man gives them. So, hard work, should not come into the equation with Blacks at all? They either take from white or just are not able to thrive in their own
right.
This man was voted to represent a very deep south Republican state, perhaps one could look at this as very positive in regards to how far our "country has come in regard to racism...
Yes, much more needs to come.Deleted
I can only speak for myself, I have no blinders on, and I don't ever run with the crowd. I look at Scott as a hard-working man due to his accomplishments, and his lack of fear for sharing his view. Most importantly I like his agenda and the policies he has worked on in Congress. I don't consider he has the baggage of what many are adding to his resume, that he is an "Uncle Tom".
That is just a byline left media has added, and I must say caught on quickly. Groupthink is very dangerous to any society.
Again I must point out to address the problem of racism, and my belief that we have come a long way.
This man was voted to represent a very deep south Republican state, perhaps one could look at this as very positive in regards to how far our country has come in regard to racism...Deleted
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021
This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.
This bill is out and out of Federal Government overreach. I could not have been more pleased to see it fail.
"but to white Republicans who believe Blue Lives Matter and police should be able to brutalize, even kill Black bodies with impunity"
This single statement expresses, perhaps more than anything else, the current racist attitude among so many today. Precious few people, white, brown, yellow or any other color believe that yet you put it onto at least half the white people today (any that vote Republican). In that manner you exhibit the very racism you claim still exists.
Charlie Kirk has an interesting take on things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocW7MKBMrqUInteresting but biased.
Segregation of the schools and dormitories are not an offshoot of CRT. Conservative lie like rugs. To the point that CRT says that systemic racism has been part and parcel of America society is the correct assessment. To use it for every excuse not to honestly delve and reveal a less jingoistic view of American history is a lie in of itself.
Nice try, Mike, but no cigar....
Just like you like to refer to your Trump and his issues as " this is not going away". I have the attitude about the controversy you current speak of here.
Jimmy Faye ---
"Scott’s behavior has been consistent pandering to the white Republican base to get elected. There is no better evidence than when he single-handedly killed the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, fearing that such a vote would be disloyal to his base."
The George Floyed Justice Policing Act was a bill that possessed severe government overreach. No Republican would have voted for such overreach. It is obvious Republicans are fully giant Federal Government overreach. The legislation was expansive, and would: Grant power to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to issue subpoenas to police departments as part of "pattern or practice" investigations into whether there has been a "pattern and practice" of bias or misconduct by the department.
Scott has very down-the-middle common sense solutions in regard to law enforcement. It would be nice if someone did some true research into this man's policies.
Again Context matters --- "
"I’ve been saying for a long time: America is not a racist country,” Scott said. “The question is, is there a lingering effect after a couple of centuries of racism and discrimination in this nation? The answer is absolutely. The question we should be debating and fighting over is how do we resolve those issues going forward. One side says, ‘I’m going to take from some to give to others.’ Fighting bigotry with bigotry is hypocrisy, it just doesn’t work.” Tim ScottDeleted
I will have a look at his record in regard to bill votes and what he has proposed. However, my comment is in regard to why he felt the George Floyed Justice Policing Act was a Government overreach --- Hey I appreciated his standing against that bill.
Yes, it is very clear Scott is a conservative, no argument there. I prefer conservative policies.Shar,
I wonder if anyone realizes how successful black conservatives are in this country. Why are these black people able to succeed so well without government? I have a black friend who is conservative and does much much better than his siblings who are democrats. All three of them grew up in the projects with the same single mother.
My friend told me perception is everything. He also said the only color that matters is green. When you can get the green, people will ignore the color of any person.I continue to be amazed by the racism that the left is using to keep blacks in their voting block. It certainly does not matter to me or anyone I know if a person is black and succesful, but as soon as someone black does do well the left is quick to jump on him as an Uncle Tom.
Or, as the white racist President would say, if you do not vote for me you are not black!Yes, LOL --- the left is always ready to label any politician on the right an Uncle Tom. However, any Black politicians are set up as men and women that overcame adversity, strived to become what they were, and just do not fit their description of an Uncle Tom... They are just up and up heros! LOL
In my view, this mindset shows hypocrisy at its very best.Yes, I agree. In my view, it shows their blatant racism.
Yes, you got it --- Democrats have truely used blacks for decades. Look at our black, there heroes, they overcame adversity... Now their blacks, Uncle Tom's, are used by Republicans.
A perfect case of hypocrisy. Not as funny as it once was, because this bunch is ruining America.
I agree. --- Is it not odd that all the many Black Democrat politicians are not labeled Uncle Toms? There are so many black people in Government states wide as well as in the Dem party. Are they all Uncle Tom's? LOL Or are they just Republican black representatives Uncle Tom's? Hard to prosses the minds of liberals.
The utter Gall of conservatives, always believing that they know more about our issues and concerns than we do. Now, how ludicrous is that?
Funny I did not hear you or any of those black women on the View complain when that old white woman ranted about any black man that does not support her views was not really black. How ludicrous is that?
That is ludicrous as well, it does not detract from my point.
Wasn't it an old white man (Biden) that said that?
GAYes, I remember that too. This was another 80 year old, this time a biological female, ranting about how black conservatives were not really black.
Yes, Biden slipped and showed his true mindset in regard to Black citizens.
That statement should have alerted black citizens that Biden takes their votes for granted. Not to mention how demeaning that statement was.And yet even here on this forum we have seen a black man support an old white racist over a black man that wants to improve the lives of minority children!
Polls are showing a shift in Black citizens' view of Biden, sort of shocking actually. But it gives me some hope that many black people are waking up
, in my view, the Democrats have not really had their backs, and just placated them to keep their votes.
"The latest Economist/YouGov Poll from last week found that only 46 percent of Black adults want Biden should run for President again. He did better in overall favorability ratings; 71 percent of Black adults said they had a favorable opinion of Biden. However, in the most recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research Poll, 58 percent of Black adults said they approved of Biden, and only 55 percent said they would support him in the general election.
While he’s still maintaining mostly positive numbers, it’s a far cry from when he first stepped into the oval office. When the Associated Press-NORC Center spoke to Black adults after Biden’s first month, his approval rating was roughly 90 percent among Black adults. The Root sat down with experts to try to explain why Biden appears to be slipping among Black Americans."
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bidens- … 00414.html
Will this support get worse as the year goes on? Maybe more blacks will wake up to the fact Biden is a very much confused man, as well as to old.We certainly are not going to support a repressive Republican Party, we have had a pattern of support over decades and one poll certainly is not predictive for the future.
Republicans are distrusted by the Black community and not supported by the Jews, Asians, Indigious Americans, nor Hispanics in overwhelming numbers, just white people. I have yet to hear an explanation from conservatives as to why that is?Have you not noticed that those people who have lived in countries that have been decimated by the left are NOT democrats? Why do you think so many Vietnamese support Republicans? Do you think there is going to be a lot of Venezuelans lining up to support Bidens left?
Have a look, Doc
Pretty comprehensive stuff, huh? Are you going to argue with Pew research, the info may be 5 years old, but you get the gist....
You point out exceptions as they are the rule. The only people that overwhelmingly support rightwing Republican types are white people, solely, and that has not changed to any menaniful degree.So you are saying that the Vietnamese immigrants to the US are white?
"About half of Vietnamese American registered voters are Republicans or lean to the GOP – the highest share across the five largest Asian origin groups in the United States."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … exception/
Is this not the organization you are relying on for your numbers?Yeah, Doc, sorry in my zeal, I forgot to provide the link.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … ic-groups/
There are small exceptions, many Cubans, but they are beginning to discover that the Republican party is no good and had moved past all of the "Bay of Pigs" stuff of previous generations.I do not think the left is ever going to regain the Cuban American vote since those who have relatives there can still see how people suffer under a leftist government.
When I was younger I visited relatives when Ukraine was under USSR. I think democrats would be horrified if they ever had to live in a communist controlled nation. That experience would change their minds.
I can agree one poll is not a deal breaker. However, it does show the current mindset of Blacks. Biden has also lost the Hispanic vote. Not sure why he would think he could capture it -- Hispanics, as a rule, are devote Catholics, and Biden's ideologies don't go over big with Catholics in general.
His Gay pride party at the White House was pretty disgusting. I think independents are very common sense oriented and are in no way like what they see in regard to his agenda for the country.https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnic … al-parties
Well, Sharlee, if you want to contradict Pew Research, then you could hold to your view that Biden and Democrats have lost the Hispanic vote, the data here seems to say quite the contrary.
I have heard that the White House is not behind the Gay Pride thing and is just as appalled by the behavior, so try not to let your bias show as much.Your article was from, ( SEPTEMBER 29, 2022) and yes, it certainly does look much different than the more current polls
May 31, 2023
Biden has lost ground with Black and Hispanic Americans
Biden's approval rating among Black, Hispanic, and white American adults since the beginning of his presidency as of May 23, 2023 --- I have not seen many polls supporting Biden in any respect.
April 2021 Hispanics favored Joe at 68% End of April 2023 that support has fallen to 41% See chart https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi … ic-voters/
It will be interesting to see upcoming polls
Right now his polls are very low
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … ullbrowser
In my view, the gay pride thing was a "try to get votes event", that went bad.
Trans are a very small part of our population. he took a big chance, and he lost.
I would think most Americans could see through Biden's old campaign ploy and were discussed at the display the Transgenders put on at the White House. He has very poor decision-making skills.I can't speak to relevance of current polls except to suggest that far more evidence is needed to prove any serious change of political allegiances by minority voters, that to include Hispanics.
I would look at how Gen Z is shaping up the vote for 2024 along with millennials. They will make up close to 50% of voters.
"Generation Z, comprised of Americans born since 1997, is the largest generation in American history. It’s also the most diverse, so much so that some have proposed that it be called the “plurals” to reflect the racial and ethnic pluralism that will make Gen Z the first majority nonwhite generation."
For a deep look check out the following link to the article; How Much Could Younger Voters Affect Future Election Outcomes? by Governing (Apr 10, 2023)
https://www.governing.com/now/how-much- … n-outcomesI saw this, thanks for sharing
If the trend from the younger people are a guide, they will generally lean more liberal than otherwise, placing Republicans and these traditional conservative types in peril. Perhaps that is why Republicans embrace a candidate that proposes to raise the voting age to 25?That is indeed (IMO) why a handful of radical Republicans embrace such a candidate.
But at the same time, while I could never endorse such a project, I can understand why people should not be able to run the world when they can be expected to shift 180 degrees with a little real life experience under their belt. That they are ignorant of how the world works, a condition that will naturally end with life's educational process for most, is not a reason to give them free reign to do as they think best in their ignorance.But, do you really think that the voices of young voters should be just dismissed and disenfranchised merely because Republicans do not like what they say?
In your world that shift is expected, but that is not true of everyone. That is a mere assumption. Ignorance is relative and depends upon your perspective.
Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote. The attempt to disenfranchise younger voters is just going to make it harder for conservatives and Republicans to be elected, by those that will resent that. Do they not realize that?"But, do you really think that the voices of young voters should be just dismissed and disenfranchised merely because Republicans do not like what they say?"
"But at the same time, while I could never endorse such a project, I can understand why people should not be able to run the world when they can be expected to shift 180 degrees with a little real life experience under their belt. "
I think I've already answered that question, and very clearly so. Your turn; do you understand why the questions over the vote of a group of inexperienced, ignorant people might be questionable when that same group will probably change their vote after life corrects their inexperience and ignorance?
Pretending that the shift is not expected, that we have not seen it happen for a hundred years, is not a reason to simply accept without comment that young people are educated enough in the ways of life to run our country."But at the same time, while I could never endorse such a project"
I apologize, you did say this.
-------
But regardless, I like things the way they are and the Republicans need to as well as so many potential voters would not take kindly to being disenfranchised.LOL Republican voters need to like what you do? That's not going to happen!
Can you honestly say you cannot understand why some people want the age changed? Can you possibly be that blind to reality, seeing only what you want to?
Or do you simply want it to remain as is to garner more votes and get your way more often?I don't care about those people, Widerness. They are selfish to want to disenfranchise younger voters because they are not willing to support their geriatric viewpoints on things? What 25 year old is going to tolerate being told that they are not mature enough to Vote? At 25 years, I was an adult and a military officer, no one could tell ME that I could not vote. I thought that you said that this idea was not palatable for you? Despite that, you seem to be giving it a lot of oxygen, regardless,
Republicans are all about the art of disenfranchisement.... but this idea, as I thought that we agreed upon, will go absolutely nowhere.I was mostly curious if you would try and use empathy, try to understand an opponent rather than just sit back and declare they are wrong and you don't care what they think, want or need. It does seem the primary way of the left; you must either agree with me or you don't matter and I don't care about you.
You have made the answer clear. Thank you.Wilderness,
What is there to empathize over, people who wanted to deny the right to participate to others for selfish reasons?
The opponent is only interested in controlling others and usurping rights from others without justification?
If these are the sort of people you ask for empathy for, that is a conservative for you, denying the rights of others is not any more significant than tying ones shoes.
So, when my grandparents were deliberately disenfranchised in the South in the 1950s and 1960s, it was empathy to sympathize with those stealing our rights?
Conservatives are hopelessly obtuse and serves and an anachronism in regards to everything forward and positive. No support, not a chance. Conservatives seem to forgot the idea that we are all entitled to equal rights and if you cannot appreciate that...
If this is the sort of stuff you give any credit to, we are destined to remain far apart. The polls would be the only surefire way to defeat the rightwing agenda. Ironically, this can occur from the very ballots of the people that they wish to disenfranchise.
So, thank you.....Empathy and sympathy aren't the same. Understanding your enemy is smarter than dismissing them.
GAI do both when appropriate, and in this case it comes out no differently in the wash. I understand their motivation and I still dismiss them. What can you add to that? I will give no quarter in regards to those that want to withhold those rights from others that they covet for themselves. There is neither room for empathy nor sympathy, no more than I would have for the Nazis.
And you can print that!
I get nervous when as Mick Jagger said,
“Sympathy for the Devil”
Is that what you are alluding to?You may not be confusing the two, it looks like you think they are the same. I got nowhere to go from here.
GA
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of WarPossibly the best example is the war over abortion; It's either a matter of a woman's control over her body or it's murder of innocent infants and neither will address the thoughts of the other and so the battle continues and people continue get hurt.
So very true. Death is death when it comes to being killed without any choice or place to hide. Some factions deemed the deaths appropriate for a cause. Whether it be a women's right to choose, or a Government's choice to war on a given land where people will ultimately be killed without choice.
Death is death. How does one ever truely explain killing? They dance around the issue, and the dance becomes popular, and very much excepted.I am not talking about abortion.
The abortion issue is not one that I fail to empathize or sympathize with the position of the other side. I disagree with them, that is all.
-------
Disenfranchising people simply because conservatives do not like their voting patterns is entirely different as contrary to democracy based upon full and equal participation. In regards to that, I can offer the "opposition" nothing at all.
The two ideas are totally different, so let's not try to make them the same?"Disenfranchising people simply because conservatives do not like their voting patterns is entirely different as contrary to democracy based upon full and equal participation."
And there it is; the total refusal to even consider what the discussion was about, presumably because it would cost Democratic votes.
Yes, the two ideas are totally different; the common reaction to other's arguments (refusal to hear) is not. And that is my complaint.Wilderness, I already know what the discussion is about, how about taking the minutiae aside and answer my direct question, I asked of you earlier
Is not the discussion about disenfranchising a group that has every right to participate in the democratic process. "My side" is not advocating that and never has.
What Justification? Don't be coy.....I gave the justification, or at least as I assume it is (never actually heard it). You don't want to even think about it, let alone discuss it.
There are many "groups" that do not have the right to vote. Going to defend them all without considering the "why" they lost the right? Or just the one that typically votes Democrat?You are being evasive, once again.
I support the 26th amendment that says that the right to vote may not be withheld from those American citizens 18 years or older. The only valid exception I've seen are those convicted of crimes through due process of law.
Who else does not have the right to Vote? Instead of generalities, how about being specific.
Our group tend to vote Democrat, do you want to disenfranchise us as well, because we choose not support your crap in large numbers?
Damnable conservatives need to recognize that the right to vote is not negotiable.
If you have a problems with voting blocks voting democratic, you better change or modify your message to be more palpable for them. Otherwise, that just tough for the Republicans that think that they can do this.
What else is there to think about?Why some people simply assume their debating opponent has nothing of value to contribute and thus refuse to listen to anything they say. That's what else there is to think about - not voting rights or anything else but the topic I began and you replied to.
I don't assume that you don't have nothing of value, you just have not given the why and wherefore of your position. I need something to evaluate before I determine its value. So, I am listening, waiting for you to say something coherent and relative to the topic we are discussing.
We are talking about this "particular topic", not anything else, whataboutism has nothing to with this. Why is it lacking empathy to not support people and groups who want to take a constitutional guaranteed right away (voting) from you? Why should anyone tolerate that?My position? I gave it clearly: I would not support raising the voting age, but I do understand why some would. That's it. Nothing esoteric, nothing strange. Just an effort to understand others and why they might take the position they do.
We tolerate other's position because it brings us together, makes us a country rather than small groups trying to control other groups because we know everything and are always right. Because Sun Tzu was right - we must understand our opponent (and friends) to live together in anything like harmony. Because without that understanding we never learn anything new that we don't make up ourselves. Because listening is an almost forgotten and unused skill, and because that can only lead to failure - failure as we see in the abortion issue with half the country encouraging it as birth control and half denying the possibility for nearly any reason."I would not support raising the voting age, but I do understand why some would."
I know, Is it because people are concerned that too many Democrats are voting because of the relatively young people casting ballots?
What if I griped about all goat ropers and sod busters voting Republican all of the time, you would understand my desire to disenfranchise them, as a way to reduce Republican ballots? But could you empathize or sympathize with it, really? Is that an acceptable remedy for you?
And how is it that you understand why some would want to raise the voting age? I understand why the Nazi's executed their Final Solution. But, there is nothing to sympathize with nor empathize with in its regard.This exchange has made me realize that having understanding verses having either empathy or sympathy are all three entirely different concepts unto themselves.
You already know why and it is unacceptable within a democratic political structure and framework. I don't countenance any form of authoritarian, facism or anti-democratic process as that will ultimately destroy all despite our current disagreements.
How much "listening" do you and the side you advocate for do? It is not as if it were a one sided street, you know. I can make the same accusation of you and your gang, right?
We can always debate and have competing votes on the merits of anything, do or not do for any topic. But only tyrants choose to get their way by breaking the rules and simply muting competing voices. I find that quite anti-democratic, and consequently, quite unacceptable."I can make the same accusation of you and your gang, right?"
No you cannot. First, because unlike you I have no "gang". Second, because I do make an effort to understand where others are coming from, just as I try to understand where you're coming from on this issue.
And as I said, I think I got my answer. You've now gone off on a tirade of Nazi's, fascism and tyrants. Anything that might affect the number of Democrat votes is unacceptable, no matter the reason, and that's the end of it for you. You have made that exceedingly clear, and I appreciate your candor.You and your rightwinged buddies have been and are just as obstinate and opinionated as you believe myself and the left is.
It is just that your empathy and sympathy are always selective depending on the stuff you already support verses the things that you don't. If you make an "effort", from my standpoint you don't do a very good job of it.
That is why it is almost impossible to get a straight answer from you. You are clearly in left field, as you usually are. What I said is that the right for all eligible people to vote will NOT be compromised just because you don't like how they vote.
That applies to Republicans, Democrats and any other political affiliation. Is this simple and basic concept so difficult for the rightwinged minded to grasp? If you are really trying to "understand", that is it in a nutshell.Sorry - the only "right wing buddies" I have is my family. Unlike some I do not claim a "group" based on skin color, political affiliation (half my family is far left liberal) or anything else.
"What I said is that the right for all eligible people to vote will NOT be compromised just because you don't like how they vote."
Right. And "eligible" means anyone trusted to vote Democrat. I got that.Your behavior and attitude has have already made the claim for you
as to your own affiliation and you don't even have to say it. You are white.
That inspoken designation Conjures up the very worse of negative stereotypes I have held in their regard. Your family all think like you do? May heaven help them....
BTW
WRONG, Eligibility means over 18, a citizen and not incarcerated. Is that not what I said or are you bringing your rightwing insecurities and fears into imagining what I did not say?
Now, have you got that?
-------
With attitudes like yours, peace will continue to remain an elusive goal within this society.Surely I misread that. It looks like you are saying he does have a gang/group — because he is white. And his white attitude will always make progress an elusive goal.
Geez Louise bud. Look in a mirror and make that claim to yourself . . . does it fit? Could your attitude be the problem you claim his is . . . simply because you are black?
GAAre you sure that you want a piece of this, GA?
It is the "Archie Bunker" White attitude, I take issue with. You can sympathize with him and his position when he distorts every factual statement that I have made?
It would tell me regardless as to how conservatives go about explaining themselves,: the patronisers, the "good cop, bad cop", the "reasonable moderate types that "don't see color", with all their varied disguises and costumes, ultimately, what they do all have in common is that they are all cut from the same white sheet. Are you covering for Wilderness like all the conservatives currently "cover" for Trump?
The point is that people should not be disenfranchised by the opposition solely because they don't like the way that that particular group happen to vote.
I did not say that it applied to Democrats exclusively, but see it as a general principle. I have said that several times and I also said such an attitude deserves neither sympathy nor empathy and I said why.
i thought that you were reasonable, does your previously expressed anti-democratic ideals allow for acceptance of that? That is the gist of this argument, he was the one to speak of identity politics.
But, I was not born yesterday and am quite familiar with the idea of extralegal disfranchisement as part and parcel of American History, now Republicans want to bring it all back again and produce a fashionable excuse to support it.
I am asking you, as I would have liked to believe that you could be an impartial 3rd party, do you really believe that Mr. Wilderness' argument as expressed in our dialogue has any merit? If so, why? In the face of all of this, why am I the ogre?
I appreciate your throwing down the gauntlet and presenting a challenge, that is what I am here for."do you really believe that Mr. Wilderness' argument as expressed in our dialogue has any merit? If so, why?"
I think both questions were answered much earlier, by both GA and tsmog.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4297394
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/358 … ost4297417And I read them and the responses were wanting and devoid of a direct answer.
So, I will put it to you again. What you've told me is that you would not support an increase in the voting age to 25 years of age, much of this stuff floating about among Rightwingers solely to eliminate a liberal voting block, that is to your credit.
What you do not really answer is why should one have empathy or sympathy for those that want to take this action. Empathy and/or sympathy for what?
I understand their motives, but how do I empathize or sympathize with those that want to simply deprive others of their rights?"I understand their motives"
Ah, but do you? All you have offered is tirade after tirade about conservatives disenfranchising voters that vote Democrat, which has exactly zero to do with what I suggested. I don't think you understand anything at all - instead you offer the same old automatic gut reaction to anything from a conservative with zero attempt to understand.
Even when given an explanation of the "whys", you simply revert to the evils of conservative voters, attacking on that basis rather than actually considering the reasoning. You don't have to agree with it (I don't, and made that clear, but was attacked anyway) - just understand the reasoning...on an objective basis without the immediate "CONSERVATIVE! BAD!" subjective reaction.
And now, as GA says, you have put skin color into the game...the game of objectively examining a position without subjective negative feelings. Doesn't work for me, doesn't work for anyone honest about discussion, doesn't work for anyone actually trying to do what is best for everyone.So humor me, what is the why? It might be easier to say that I understand the "why" in regards to dealing with an opponent and all of that. What I am looking for is WHAT is the perspective of the disenfranchising Republicans that I need to give empathy to...
In America, skin color has been and always is in the game. I used it only to show how it was when those of "my skin" color were systemically disenfranchised. I apologize for being to zealous about that point.
But both you and GA are being evasive about the straight answer to the question. I am all for honest discussion and you can begin with a direct answer, no attacks...
What is the perspective of those Republicans anxious to disenfranchise young voters that merit empathy or sympathy? What reasoning is there to consider and does it deserve empathy? Only then can I determine if I agree with it or not.
I am certain that Wilderness can answer for himself. My responses to you have not been about the merits of 'the argument,' they have been about the perspectives offered.
I knew there was nowhere to go with this, but your last statement about automatic assumptions based on skin color was a step off the ledge. I was just trying to help a bud take a second look before taking that step. Being an optimist doesn't mean it always works out, but having hope is a good thing. ;-)
GA
"The opponent is only interested in controlling others and usurping rights from others without justification?"
And those two simple words say it all: you don't agree and therefore the actions are not worthy of understanding and you are not concerned with their thoughts. Both GA and tsmog have said it better than I did; without understanding your opponent you lose any possibility of agreement or compromise. My way or the highway is all that's left.
You going simple on me Doc?
The old white man represents a party who has been our interests as opposed to a black man that is supporting a party that hasn't. The choice is not a difficult one to make.I understand that you are against the Trump/Bush/Reagenesque ideas but that you can continue to support a man that, even though he claims to belong to a party that was once part of the working class and a supporter of what they thought would help black Americans, is really hard to understand.
The choice you have seems obvioius.Relative to what the Republicans are and what they have become, they (the Democrats) still are more supportive of working people and by extension the aspirations of Black Americans.
I dont agree with that at all. The Democrats, or at least the Bidens, seem to have a "China First" policy that is aimed at the working class. I guess their policy is working for them as the poor tend to vote Democratic.
It might well appear that way, but I am looking at the legislation on the ground that skews toward my interests and that of the middle class as opposed to the wealthy.
With the Democrats relatively favorable track record, I will take my chances with them over a clearly hostile adversary.No, Democrats are not supportive of working people. The class is nothing but "deplorables" to them, and it shows.
Black Conservative Candice Owens explains problems with the black community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yMF9nCJxWQWhy don't you check my thread as to why we are having problems with giving Candace any credibility, from a source other than rightwing media?
Do black conservatives know about the issues and concerns of the black community? Are THEIR opinions valid? You have to ask yourself why there are so many successful black conservatives. Why hasn't the alleged "systematic racism" impacted them? Why are they so different?
Of course their opinions are valid, but just like the climate change controversy only a handful deny its existence. There are a lot of successful black liberals and progressives as well. Systemic racism is mostly applied in the past, by whites who I can never get to tell me why they went to so much trouble to deny people basic rights. Under such a system, black people have had to work infinitely harder to attain to same outcomes as whites. Systemic racism impacts all of US, but a few always manage to negotiate the minefield to escape and prosper, regardless.
Systemic racism as supported by law, government and excessive custom is a thing of the past, even though it still rears it head from certain extremities much too often, still. What I keep trying to get through to conservatives is that there are residual effects from this systemic racism on the ability of blacks to have accumulated wealth and these past practices did not just end during the "Middle Ages", as with my parents and grandparents, they had real effects on real people in real time.
Redlining and the inability of blacks to be treated fairly in the housing markets did not end until the late 1960s. So, yes, now there is a level playing field, but with whites having the advantage of never having to had been "put upon" in this fashion, they are always laps ahead.
Regardless, Kudos to Tim Scott as he had the courage to walk into the lions den. Courage is an admirable quality that I respect when found in any man or woman.
So, no answer, does the cat have your tongues? I am disappointed, but not surprised.
What is the perspective of those Republicans anxious to disenfranchise young voters that merit empathy or sympathy? What reasoning is there to consider and does it deserve empathy? Only then can I determine if I agree with it or not.
----------
Let me attempt to provide the answers that both of you are determined not to respond to, so blink twice for yes, and once for no.
The true answer would reveal the anti-democratic, authoritarian nature of conservatives, Republicans, MAGA's, or what ever else you call yourselves these days. Who would think that I would buy any car without checking under the hood? And in regards to the agenda of the Right, what is under the hood tells the real story. Attempting to hide "dirty laundry" is not going to keep me for ultimately discovering it for what it is.
I have to go back and find a standard that I could relate to, the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South 70 years ago. Now what be the motive for the disenfranchisement of young voters, hmm? Was it about control and power over others by silencing competing voices contrary to principles of democracy of "one man, one vote? This attitude regarding the young voters is just more of the same, the wishes of the few taking precedence over the wishes of the many, the very foundation of anti-democratic and tyrannical thought. It is nothing new when you deal with the Right.
("Republicans want to change the ballot measures rules to block proposals they don’t support, even if voters do.")
Let me guess, is this part of the big picture, the dirty little secret that the Right will not acknowledge because it might put more than a few people off?
So what is the perspective of the disenfranchisers for which I am supposed to have empathy and sympathy? They are being put upon by the fact that they can no longer exact control over others and have their way because of the primacy of the democratic process over their desires? Is that the basis for their lament and feeling sorry for them?Much like the one pummeling another in their face lamenting over the fact that they broke a fingernail.
As evasive as you conservatives have been, let it be known that I am "on to you". I can offer neither empathy nor sympathy to such a group nor to their agenda and never will.
--------
Read it and weep, your folks and their advocates are just no friggin' good
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysi … se-states/I don't know what the hell your rant is about. Nor did I respond to your first one about this disenfranchisement issue. I don't know beans about it. I 'heard' it had something to do with raising the voting age to 25. I also heard the impetus for it was the 'world view' of young Gen Z voters.
So, I will answer for my exchanges.
What I responded to was a point that you might benefit from a little empathy. Make an effort to understand the folks you are demonizing—and losing folks as you do. tsmog followed my point with an Art of War quote, and Wilderness followed with a 3rd effort.
Empathy is for you (generic). You are the primary beneficiary of understanding your opponent. It only benefits them if your understanding causes you to change something that favors them.
Sympathy is something you give. It has nothing to do with empathy, although empathy may prompt sympathy. I don't know how the hell you got them mixed up. I didn't suggest it.
3 or 4 shots at explaining that point, in the hope that you might take a breath and see where you were standing. In the weeds.
To your question . . . that was between you and Wilderness. I've told you how little I know about it, so I'm listening to Twain on this one.
GAWhy is everything with which you disagree a rant?
I warned you about taking a "piece"of this debate particularly if you are just going to fly in and out and offer incoherent comments without explanation.
I know the difference between empathy and sympathy.
I am trying to understand the significance of understanding your opponent, as you speak of, I do and I still don't like what I see.
You're talking in circles, So, you are 20 years old, what example of empathy would you have on behalf of group of people who wanted to take your right to vote away?
How about not waltzing around and instead provide a direct answer? Since you seem so set on this principle, why not take a chance and answer and not wait for Wilderness.....
There is not a great deal of those aspects of character in my makeup, you try to take something that belongs to me, you are going to hear about it. Such is the nature of our world and our existence. I do understand, which is the reason that I cannot allow myself the luxury of being empathetic nor offer sympathy.The exchange was about a political move your 'opponents' made and your asking for an explanation or rebuttal of your reasons for why conservatives would support such a move.
This is why I consider the comments to be rants:
"I don't care about those people . . . They are selfish to want to disenfranchise younger voters because . . . their geriatric viewpoints on things?"
"Conservatives are hopelessly obtuse and serves and an anachronism in regards to everything forward and positive."
"I understand their motivation and I still dismiss them." ". . . no more than I would have for the Nazis."
". . . about all goat ropers and sod busters voting Republican all of the time." "I understand why the Nazi's executed their Final Solution." "But only tyrants choose to get their way by breaking the rules and simply muting competing voices."
". . . as to your own affiliation and you don't even have to say it. You are white." " Your family all think like you do? May heaven help them...."
"It is the "Archie Bunker" White attitude . . .' ". . . what they do all have in common is that they are all cut from the same white sheet."
Surely you don't see those statements as part of a reasonable discussion, right?
And then, your closing reinforced the perception that you don't know the difference between empathy and sympathy:
". . . I cannot allow myself the luxury of being empathetic "
You are saying that knowing about your opponent is a luxury. I say it is a prerequisite if your desire is the achievement of your goals. If the desire is only to argue, slander, and demean, then as you say, it would be an unnecessary luxury.
Consider tsmog's quote as it might apply to your goal of defeating conservative and right-winger agendas.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
You (the Left) don't know your enemy and you are losing repeated battles because of that lack of understanding (empathy). Consider the Supreme Court's makeup. Consider the consolidation of Trump's base. Consider the media-presented inferences that moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from your type of zeal. (that's just an opinion formed by CNN watching) And that moderates of both sides are finding more common ground with Independents.
Empathy is one way of "knowing your enemy." That has been my point all along, and your responses have been in the vein of the above quotes. You don't know your enemy. You only know the characature that is presented by the extremes, the media, and the zeal of your own biases. You openly say you don't need to understand your enemy, Sun Tzu doesn't know what he's talking about.
This explanation is why I read your responses as "rants." It wasn't because of disagreement. The "cat had my tongue" because there was no future in the discussion. You are arguing from the mud of extreme partisanship. I don't want to jump in the mud with you, the solution is not down there.
However, being the optimist that I am, we could start over and look at the specifics of this disenfranchisement issue. Who knows, I might find the promoters to be idiots too. As you asked; sure I'll jump in. ;-)
GA"I don't care about those people . . . They are selfish to want to disenfranchise younger voters because . . . their geriatric viewpoints on things?"
Why would I care about the desires of people who seek to disenfranchise others in an anti-democratic way. The desires are wrong.
-----
"Conservatives are hopelessly obtuse and serves and an anachronism in regards to everything forward and positive."
Is that not the definition of conservatism, resistance to change? While, I understand that basic foundation, anti-democratic accommodation toward that end does not work for me. I will always take issue with that regardless of from what direction it comes.
-----
"I understand their motivation and I still dismiss them." ". . . no more than I would have for the Nazis."
How far is my "empathy" supposed to go? Nazi is not an expletive, but defines an attitude of authoritarianism and tyranny.
------
". . . about all goat ropers and sod busters voting Republican all of the time." "I understand why the Nazi's executed their Final Solution." "But only tyrants choose to get their way by breaking the rules and simply muting competing voices."
Is that not fair play, conservatives want to disenfranchise younger voters, why can I not have my side decide to disenfranchise republican voting blocks? You still are ignoring the principle of this matter.
---
". . . as to your own affiliation and you don't even have to say it. You are white." " Your family all think like you do? May heaven help them...."
Who says that the poor remain poor because they want to? The sentiments that brought forth my comment is how a lot of us see conservative whites and their attitudes, I am being honest and not sugar coating.
--------1
"It is the "Archie Bunker" White attitude . . .' ". . . what they do all have in common is that they are all cut from the same white sheet."
I am disappointed to see that "conservative" is always conservative in the new Trumpian style and not really moderate beyond lip service. It was a flamboyant statement but it gets attention beyond bromide sorts of comments.
But according to "Confucius", I do understand them, but their objectives in regards to democratic government cannot be tolerated, that is if we want to remain a free democratic society and not become an autocratic one, this is basic and fundamental. By conciliation and accomodation to that kind of thinking we have already lost this struggle, which is crucial to our survival. The very existence of Trump and his ability to stoke that fear among so many is not something to AmericA's credit.
If moderate Democrats adopt too many of the Republican values, than I will have to consider another party or sit it out as there will be no real difference between the two any longer.
.
When liberals are attacked with similar descriptions, do you go in and attempt to speak about reasonable terms of discourse or is it just progressive liberals like me?
For Republicans a moderate Democrat is just a "light Republican". The Right has moved the bar of what is considered radical to the point of attacking the accurate teaching of American history in school. Now, everything that is factual but contrary to a convenient reactionary stance is now "Woke"?
Even, you, yourself are infected with a conservative bias in your viewpoints from where I sit.
I am ideological, not partisan and there is a difference. I am a liberal, progressive sort, I going support the agenda and candidates consistent with that, or what comes closest to those values. And right now, that is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are consistently against those values, so my choice is clear.
So, be the optimist, check out this Indian Republican candidate who says we need to raise the voting age to 25, be surprised how his message is warmly received in conservative circles. Tell me if they are idiots or not?"When liberals are attacked with similar descriptions, do you go in and attempt to speak about reasonable terms of discourse or is it just progressive liberals like me?"
Yep. I am an equal-opportunity offender. More than a few 'conservatives' think I've turned liberal. A couple even seemed to resent any challenge to their perspectives.
Of course, I have a conservative bias. More than once I've laid claim to the flag of [C]onservative. Capital Cs are almost never Republican conservatives. Surely you've seen the memo?
I glanced at Vivek Ramaswamy. It appears he is the source of your voter disenfranchisement angst.
Google says this idea is just him. I see some truth in the reasons he offers, but his solution is wrong. He doesn't seem like a knuckle-dragging nut, but he does sound like a super-long-shot candidate trying to grab the spotlight.
As for conservatives that support his idea . . . I think they're wrong too. They may see some of the truths in his reasons, just as I do, but those kernels of truth don't support his solution. How large do you suppose his group of like-minded supporters is, half a dozen, half a hundred, hundreds? They would be a very tiny fraction of Republican voters.
Is this one guy with an admittedly unsellable idea the source for your conservative condemnations? If so, you're deeper in the weeds than I thought, and I thought you were really deep. You should watch out for gators and snakes.
GAYou've answered my question, it is dumb. But this is a reasonable man, why are Republicans giving him any oxygen at all?
He simply puts to words the desires of Republicans to repress the youth vote, like they do the minority voters because they don't vote for their candidates, and I don't see any comparable attempt by Democrats in the same way.
(I glanced at Vivek Ramaswamy. It appears he is the source of your voter disenfranchisement angst.)That comment is like saying that all Dems want to support child castration and removing the breasts of underage girls because Biden and his team give voice to that view.
It is not true and is not the desire of all. Do you not think that Republican candidate has the right to say something so stupid?You have made your point, that is a fair comparison and assessment. Both sides have their extremes that are not to considered mainstream. But we don't have any candidates on our side that promote that extreme stance.
Do you have anything else to add to this discussion?
Oh, by the way, I thought that I would share this interview between CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and President Obama from last week. A rebuttal to Tim Scott.
I think, as opposed to your opinion of Tim Scott having the “right perspective”, Mr. Obama’s is more accurate, particularly in regards to race relations currently. Much of these comments are in the last 10 minutes of the interview. But, I forget most conservative types did not like Obama, but he speaks to me and for me in so many ways.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2023/06/2 … r-intw.cnnI watched, from 11 minutes on . . . I'm looking for a trap. I think Pres. Obama nailed it. With a possible caveat here or there, I completely agree with him. And, since he is saying what I already believed, he must be right. ;-)
He spoke to the political divide since his time. He spoke to race's involvement. He did point fingers, but he also recognized the fingers pointing back. Most importantly, he spoke to the bones of the issues—not the eye-catching details that are flashed about by extreme positions—with an understanding of why those details were getting the stage. He understood that it is the human trait of fear of change and fear of difference (from both sides) that had to be addressed. His empathy enabled him to understand more about his 'opponents,' thus enabling him to have a more realistic understanding of how to achieve his goals.
I didn't hear anything that contradicted Tim Scott's perspective that race things have continued to make forward strides. He simply said there are still steps to go. Scott hasn't said there wasn't. Scott painted a rosy picture but he didn't claim it was finished.
I am still looking for the trap. I didn't hear anything that resembled your displayed perspective, yet you say speaks for you on those issues. What did I miss?
GAI appreciate you taking the time to view this, Obama speaks for me.
Referencing Scott's "hope story" in regards to his ancestors, Obama says,"Hope" is not something that can be clung to without a foundation for it.
He says,
We have been backsliding in our commitment to democracy. MOSTLY from the Republican Party but some blame can be spread around.
There is no trap, I am not so far out in the weeds, while Scott placates us all with "happy talk", Obama provides a more honest and accurate assessment of where we actually are.
I am not trying to achieve a goal, but making a point consistent with the evident backslide of our committement to the Democratic process.
"He understood that it is the human trait of fear of change and fear of difference (from both sides) that had to be addressed. His empathy enabled him to understand more about his 'opponent"
While you can "feel" the fear of what the opponents are concerned about, are we really prepared to introduce anti-democratic solutions for all in response to the fear of change by a select few? Is that what we are being encouraged to understand and accommodate? For if we capitulate in this area, then the American experiment of self government just as well come to an end.
Obama also said, which was important, (that we all agree at the outset to play by the rules.) That means nothing other than changes are only to occur within a democratic framework.When you better understand ("feel") the motive for resistance you are better able to address that resistance. That was the message Pres. Obama made in the interview.
As an example, and not to become another topic to argue, the transgender issue. . .
For conservatives, two sexes is a solid fact. For the most part, heterosexuality is a core belief.
For the trans folks, as Obama expressed, they just want to be acknowledged and have a seat at the table with 'normal'* folks.
A reasonable person will understand that core beliefs are not going to be changed by demands and threats—a different tactic is needed. Whether it is right that different "tactics" are needed isn't part of the equation. It's reality.
My view is that the trans folks, and the Democrats as a whole, don't understand it is core values they're fighting, they just think it is Neanderthall goat ropers and sod busters living in the past and they just need to be pushed out of the way. Hence the Glamor cover of a fake pregnant man, and the demand that the Neanderthalls accept that anyone can be any gender (and now any thing - have you seen the whites claiming they're blacks because that's what they 'feel' inside?) they want.
I bet blind demands of acceptance wouldn't be Obama's approach. The same goes for the other issues. Without knowing what you are fighting success is bound to be a hit or miss thing.
Imagine if a Rightwinger and a Leftie trans faced each other and the Leftie knew what was driving the Rightwinger's resistance. And instead of demanding the acceptance of multiple sexes they instead explained that for them, gender and sex are different things, one is in the mind and one is in the body. Further, suppose the Leftie explained that they only wanted to be seen as people—just like everyone else. They want to be accepted for what they are—without demanding that the Rightie accept that as a new normal. And so on and so on . . .
Then consider that the Rightie, because the Leftie's understanding of what they were facing changed their presentation, can accept someone's belief about the trans issue—without demands that they abandon their belief in the biological fact of two sexes. And so on . . .
I bet that sit-down would be a lot more fruitful, for both.
All because of the Leftie's empathy. An empathy that informed them.
Also, your view of Scott's "happy talk" isn't how I see it. It's reality 'talk.' He isn't dismissing the need for continuing progress, he is emphasizing the progress that has been made.
GAThe difference between Obama's comments relative to those of Tim Scott are provided below. For me, between the two, Obama's comments are more on the mark, so their viewpoints are not quite the same.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … -rhetoric/
I am definitely not conservative, but yer, I only see two genders for a fact, as well. This was not the best example to use to make your point.
So, I try to be empathetic with "Neanderthals", I understand why books like "Suzy has two daddies" for example would give parents cause to be concerned over what is being taught.
But, core values or not, it just IS. The "Core" cannot believe that they can burn every book, stop up every ear, divert every eye from what is real and true. It is a fool's errand that they must eventually lose.
Homosexual and lesbianism are realities, just as the history surrounding the savagery of slavery and its aftermath of terror for blacks in America is a reality. "Core people" need to realize that neither students nor anyone else can be indefinitely shrouded from the truth. They need to keep their moral judgements and fairy tales within their churches or other gathering places of their choice.
There was once a "core" belief that me and mine were fit only as maids and butlers, "The Southern Way of Life", such thinking was reinforced by William Buckley, Jr, the father of American conservatism, back in the 1950s. This stance he later apologized for, but how much credibility did he sacrifice in the meantime?
You and I have spoken about this before, I am not willing to negotiate with those whose "core" value was the eternal foot upon my neck. The very "core" belief that put me and mine under continued systemic disadvange in most aspects of American life. Was there not an imperative to change that, regardless of the "believers" discomfort? The Civil Rights movement forced the issue, as it was certainly not about people sitting down and reasoning things out, with those that refused to acknowledge the truth and adjust their attitudes and behavior accordingly.
So, demands and threats certainly changed that core belief so that the most egregious outrages were eliminated. Is it true that often times, I am going to have to break an egg or two to get that omelette?
Related Discussions
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 13
What part does racial identity play in your support of the presidential race?
by Rodric Anthony Johnson 12 years ago
What part does racial identity play in your support of the presidential race?So many minorities I have encountered use race as a reason to support a candidate. Share your feelings about it and why.
- 140
Why don't RINOs Admit This is Assault on Blacks is Real?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
RINOs (today's Republican party) are in total denial and live in a fantasy world where massacres of Black, like what is depicted in Dreamland, never happened or wasn't as bad as people say. They also deny Trump lost the election. They also deny what happened on 1/6/21 was an...
- 12
Who believes the Republicans will win the White House in two years time?
by Philip Cooper 10 years ago
Who believes the Republicans will win the White House in two years time?
- 16
So, what do you think about this campaign ad?
by Tim Mitchell 3 years ago
Below is the link to a campaign ad for Republican Jerone Davison defending his home with an AR-15 from the Democratic KKK.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_cmpSUe8coCaught the campaign ad on TMZ Live this morning and it peeked my interest on different levels. First, being a writer I first Focus on...
- 31
Biden, Blah Blah Blah --- But What About Senator Tim Scott?
by Sharlee 4 years ago
I have little to say about Biden's speech to the Nation, other than it was a typical political speech. Filled to the brim with half-truths, and fluffy BS plans that will not make it to see the light of day. . He made an effort to point out what he felt were accomplishments that he seems to feel he...