Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now would not be the time to quit Identity politics. The whole system is based on creating victim identities, identifying persecutors and having the ruling class play the rescuer. It is the three legged social stoll that the current social program is based on. Now would be the time to start to increase up the rhetoric, and ensure that young folks wallow in a deep and resonating sense of victimhood.
Sure the victim narrative has suffered a bit over the last eight years, as it had become harder and harder to find the right person to play the persecutor role. Sometimes we had to dig deep to find a persecutor but lets face it the municipal worker - policeman did a fine job as persecutor but now we can move on to bigger and better things. The funding streams for BLM will continue as this program was a raging success the past two summers.
We are on the merge of harvesting a bumper crop of persecutor type stories. With the current government in place a ready made persecutor is there to fit into each and every victim narrative. There are great opportunities here to divide and conquer and play the various groups off of each other. The POTUS (Persecutor of the United States) is an interchangeable part ready to fit into each and every story of victimhood.
Now would not be the time to quit Identity politics. The whole system is based on creating victim identities, identifying persecutors and having the ruling class play the rescuer. It is the three legged social stoll that the current social program is based on. Now would be the time to start to increase up the rhetoric, and ensure that young folks wallow in a deep and resonating sense of victimhood.
Sure the victim narrative has suffered a bit over the last eight years, as it had become harder and harder to find the right person to play the persecutor role. Sometimes we had to dig deep to find a persecutor but lets face it the municipal worker - policeman did a fine job as persecutor but now we can move on to bigger and better things. The funding streams for BLM will continue as this program was a raging success the past two summers.
We are on the merge of harvesting a bumper crop of persecutor type stories. With the current government in place a ready made persecutor is there to fit into each and every victim narrative. There are great opportunities here to divide and conquer and play the various groups off of each other. The POTUS (Persecutor of the United States) is an interchangeable part ready to fit into each and every story of victimhood.
Victim - Poor Whites (new victim a growth segment) / Persecutor - Trump / Rescuer - Media
Victim - Women / Persecutor - Trump & misogynist Men / Rescuer - Liberal Govt
Any more ideas? The more victim narratives the better.
Hillary Clinton did indeed attempt to focus on all those identities, and so did the Democratic party. It lead to Donald Trump's rise to power as there is no way to unite all those people together for one common cause using identity politics. And women don't ALWAYS identity with other woman, as this election has PROVEN.
Not all MINORITIES support illegal immigrants, and this includes some legal immigrants or the children of immigrants who don't support illegal immigrants. Just because someone is Black doesn't mean they want to abolish the police department. Not all gay people advocated for gay marriage.
The Democrats themselves admit identity politics is failed and OVER!
You also didn't read the articles. The Democrats were hoping a coalition of women of all races and minorities would sweep Hillary Clinton into power. In short, they rejected white males, and especially working class white males.
Only white women majority voted for Trump, and many Blacks, Latinos, and Asians did not vote. Of those that did vote, Trump did better among among non whites than Romney.
So clearly identity liberalism is dead because politically it does not work!
You go into denial about things you don't like.
In order to recover from this loss, the Democrats will have to go after working class voters in the interior of the country, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the White House OR Congress without them. The Republicans also control Congress.
In your own opinion, why do YOU personally think it is that many Blacks and Latinos in particular chose to not vote? They don't feel that voting makes a difference in their lives or is important to them? They don't feel that there is any real consequential difference between Trump versus Clinton as to the impact on their lives and concerns?
Though note that, by asking this, I am NOT trying to imply that I think that all Blacks or all Latinos are of a monolithic mindset or outlook all shared amongst one another or reflect all the same life circumstances, achieved educational levels, socioeconomic achievement levels, political/social/cultural/philosophical outlooks, et al.
QUESTION: To all those who admittedly or non-admittedly are Bernie Sanders supporters and want the Democratic Party to tilt even more into left-leaning progressivism and democratic socialism:
Do you actually think, in your very best intellctually-honest judgment (not based on simple wishful thinking on your part) that a Bernie Sanders or, say, an Elizabeth Warren would truly truly truly win over the hearts and minds of the American populace at-large and get elected the next time around (or even during the just-completed election . . . if either or them was the Democratic candidate)? So our populace at large is willing to embrace outright near-socialism (albeit "democratic socialism")?
I'm not trying to push or steer any of you as to what your answer should be. I'm just asking you if you can TRULY find it within yourselves to be TRULY intellectually honest and discerning in answering this posed question.
In your own opinion, why do YOU personally think it is that many Blacks and Latinos in particular chose to not vote? They don't feel that voting makes a difference in their lives or is important to them? They don't feel that there is any real consequential difference between Trump versus Clinton as to the impact on their lives and concerns?
Though note that, by asking this, I am NOT trying to imply that I think that all Blacks or all Latinos are of a monolithic mindset or outlook all shared amongst one another or reflect all the same life circumstances, achieved educational levels, socioeconomic achievement levels, political/social/cultural/philosophical outlooks, et al.
I think there was lower black turnout (how much lower, I'm not sure) because a black person was not on the ticket and because of the idea that the Clintons promoted mass incarceration. However if you look at the statistics, the voter turnout in The Bronx for instance (heavily populated by minorities), isn't much different from the national turnout (over 50%). I wonder if there's any reliable information on minority turnout in this election compared to prior elections.
Voter turnouts in general have been consistently low in recent decades, turnout hasn't cracked 60% since 1968 to my knowledge.
In your own opinion, why do YOU personally think it is that many Blacks and Latinos in particular chose to not vote? They don't feel that voting makes a difference in their lives or is important to them? They don't feel that there is any real consequential difference between Trump versus Clinton as to the impact on their lives and concerns?
Though note that, by asking this, I am NOT trying to imply that I think that all Blacks or all Latinos are of a monolithic mindset or outlook all shared amongst one another or reflect all the same life circumstances, achieved educational levels, socioeconomic achievement levels, political/social/cultural/philosophical outlooks, et al.
A number of Blacks and Latinos felt that there was no real consequential difference between Trump and Clinton. Bill Clinton signed various laws that lead to mass incarceration of Black people, and this caught up to the Clintons this campaign season.
The Democrats have recovered from extreme landslides (1972 and 1984), and from a similar electoral vote loss but popular vote win (2000). I don't buy this narrative that "liberalism is dead".
It didn't say liberalism is dead. Identity liberalism, itself racist (but acceptable racist), is being proposed as dead, not liberalism per se.
QUESTION: To all those who admittedly or non-admittedly are Bernie Sanders supporters and want the Democratic Party to tilt even more into left-leaning progressivism and democratic socialism:
Do you actually think, in your very best intellctually-honest judgment (not based on simple wishful thinking on your part) that a Bernie Sanders or, say, an Elizabeth Warren would truly truly truly win over the hearts and minds of the American populace at-large and get elected the next time around (or even during the just-completed election . . . if either or them was the Democratic candidate)? So our populace at large is willing to embrace outright near-socialism (albeit "democratic socialism")?
I'm not trying to push or steer any of you as to what your answer should be. I'm just asking you if you can TRULY find it within yourselves to be TRULY intellectually honest and discerning in answering this posed question.
I'm not chained to one political party - anyone who thinks one party has all the right answers is self-deceiving or nuts. But as to your question: Warren might be able to pull it off. She's very sharp - and usually states things that just can't be argued with. Bernie is a good guy but comes across as too far over, he's not going to persuade the people who really decide elections - those in the middle unchained to one ideology. He seems like underneath he's "a commie" - even though none of those people voting know what a communist actually is.
How can anyone support neoliberalism, it's nothing more than exploitation being opportunistic of global imbalances. It does not benefit all and causes bubbles and further erosion of citizen classes. The only way it works is in a shared economy such as socialist countries where the government part takes on the economy and distributes it's wealth as entitlements. Otherwise in our market economy you end up with a few winners and a lot of losers.
Silicon Valley and other elites should be glad that Trump won and not some ultra religious right-swing conservative that will hit them hard. This country was on it's way towards civil war again.
I think there was lower black turnout (how much lower, I'm not sure) because a black person was not on the ticket and because of the idea that the Clintons promoted mass incarceration. However if you look at the statistics, the voter turnout in The Bronx for instance (heavily populated by minorities), isn't much different from the national turnout (over 50%). I wonder if there's any reliable information on minority turnout in this election compared to prior elections.
Voter turnouts in general have been consistently low in recent decades, turnout hasn't cracked 60% since 1968 to my knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
A number of Blacks and Latinos felt that there was no real consequential difference between Trump and Clinton. Bill Clinton signed various laws that lead to mass incarceration of Black people, and this caught up to the Clintons this campaign season.
Do those among the Black and Latino populations who did not vote at all understand the reality that we rarely, if ever, get presented with perfect or even near-perfect choices for political candidates? That is, for everyone or nearly everyone who gets to become a nominee for public office, voting for that person will often be a compromise decision for us. We can't always get everything we ideally want but to think that there is no real differential impact on their lives to have a Hillary Clinton versus a Donald Trump is just being blind and ignorant. For instance, for so many persons of lesser means, it appears that there will be notably constricted healthcare options for them if Trump and his allies have their way. And the very likely (or seemingly likely) outcome of greatly-restricted open trade practices will, in the greater likelihood, result in significantly increased costs of consumer goods across-the-board and hence reduced patronizing by consumers of retail and online businesses (hence greatly dampening the economy). Do the Blacks and Latinos who chose not to vote at all and whom are also in the lower-than-middle-class stratum truly not understand all this? Sometimes, one may have to vote for persons that one is not wholly accepting and accommodating of just for the sake of achieving larger overriding goals. IN SUMMARY: It's like, as the old saying goes, this non-voting segment of the Black and Latino populations is engaging in "cutting off one's nose to spite their face". My verdict of their choice: a rather ill-conceived and unwise choice on your parts, for you are just hurting yourselves.
Not that I myself am opposed to everything Trump has espoused, for I am not. For example: (1) I do believe we as a nation need to do serious "vetting", as a way-of-life, of the prevailing immigrant populations amongst us to separate and weed-out the criminal-prone elements; (2) I can't outright argue that a nation-state doesn't have an innate responsibility to guard its borders and control the flow of persons in-and-out (just for security reasons alone), for any nation does, in fact, have the responsibility and moral right to do so (even though we also have or may have a humanitarian impulse residing in ourselves as well); (3) And, as to the loss of American jobs, we as a nation do have a responsibility to attend to the welfare and needs of our own native citizens FIRST before we try to be wholesale caretakers of the rest of the world. In summary, I am not an outright supporter of every single thing that Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders represents or espouses . . . and Clinton did engage in quite serious security lapses and ethical lapses to take it upon herself to set up her own private email server system to handle all communications regarding the foreign affairs of the U.S. I mean what the hell was she thinking? Why in God's name would she do that? But, in the end, Trump was perceived by me as even MORE of a loose cannon and danger to the welfare and well-being of the USA (and the world-at-large) than Clinton would be and varied (not all) of Trump's espoused policies were perceived by myself as being even MORE likely to be detrimental and negatively impactful upon our nation's welfare than Clinton's espoused policies would be (e.g., the gutting of healthcare coverage for so many many Americans). So my choice to vote for Clinton was done with my nose somewhat held shut at the time of voting. For it is truly rare that that we get to make perfect or even near-perfect choices in life. And so that segment of the Black and Latino populations that decided to sit out the election altogether don't ALSO, along with myself and many others, realize this basic truth?
Last edited by UsAll; 11-29-2016 at 03:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
