Clarifying: "We don't need white people leading the democratic party"... (Huckabee, Pelosi)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

No doubt, no wrongly chosen words, and no misconstruing - elements of the Democratic Party clearly want to embrace a non-white identity.

I don't think it's a non-white ideology but a non-conservative white ideology because they have this weird complex in their mind that they're fighting some white supremacist patriarchal system. It's really insane.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

The GOP has been begging for people of color to break away from the Dems and go to them. A black Republican is treated like a king in the party and not because he's token but because they actually like it when people break away from the Dems. This doesn't mean they will ignore their base which is white Middle America but they don't try to neglect one for the other like the Dems did in favor of a coalition of minorities in the metro areas.


The Dems dropped the mantle of class in favor of identity. That was evident when they ousted Bernie in favor of corporate shill Hillary. They played on the bet that minorities, gays, women and the metros would make up for their dropping of white working class middle America.


The difference is that the GOP didn't change their platform but were trying to be more inclusive. The Dems dropped their populist platform to play up identity and incorporate a base of mostly minorities and urban cosmopolitan dwellers.

The above statement does not answer my question.


What do you call it when a Republicans goes out and speaks to a specific group like #2A's or Pro Lifers or evangelicals ????

Why do you not consider that Identity politics ?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

The GOP has been begging for people of color to break away from the Dems and go to them. A black Republican is treated like a king in the party and not because he's token but because they actually like it when people break away from the Dems.

LOL that is the definition of tokenism.

You shouldnt treat someone like a King because they are unique(black and conservative).

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The above statement does not answer my question.


What do you call it when a Republicans goes out and speaks to a specific group like #2A's or Pro Lifers or evangelicals ????

Why do you not consider that Identity politics ?

Because anyone can belong to those groups. They aren't identities.


Identity politics is BLM, LGBT, illegal immigrants, accusations or criticisms of any of these protected groups as racist, xenophobic, etc.


Your just stereotyping those issues as only unique to whites. You don't think inner city devout Catholic Hispanics aren't pro-life too? Blacks aren't evangelical? No one but whites can be pro-2nd?


My oh my, talk about echo chamber, out of touch, narrative to the bone liberal!

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

LOL that is the definition of tokenism.

You shouldnt treat someone like a King because they are unique(black and conservative).

No they treat them like a king as in welcome him and congratulate him for leaving the Dems. The GOP gets tired of the racism accusations but they won't change their platform. So when a black man or woman goes GOP they don't neglect they proud of that.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Because anyone can belong to those groups. They aren't identities.


Identity politics is BLM, LGBT, illegal immigrants, accusations or criticisms of any of these protected groups as racist, xenophobic, etc.


Your just stereotyping those issues as only unique to whites. You don't think inner city devout Catholic Hispanics aren't pro-life too? Blacks aren't evangelical? No one but whites can be pro-2nd?


My oh my, talk about echo chamber, out of touch, narrative to the bone liberal!

At this point, I have to believe you are being obtuse.

I have stated from the beginning that I do not define something as an identity specifically because of race. I define it as pandering to a group over specific issues.

I also clearly stated that none of these groups has to include only one color of people.

So yes, pandering to a racially mixed catholic church group in suburban Wisconsin is just as much identity politics as it is going to an LGBT crisis center in New York City.

Again, I have stated that many times, and you seem to be ignoring it .

I also ask for you to tell me what you call that if you do not define it as identity politics, and why you believe that is ok vs identity politics .

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

No they treat them like a king as in welcome him and congratulate him for leaving the Dems. The GOP gets tired of the racism accusations but they won't change their platform. So when a black man or woman goes GOP they don't neglect they proud of that.

That is a better explanation., but that doesnt change the fact that tokenism exist within the Republican Party.


David Clarke is a great example.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

At this point, I have to believe you are being obtuse.

I have stated from the beginning that I do not define something as an identity specifically because of race. I define it as pandering to a group over a specific issues.

I also clearly stated that none of these groups has to include only one color of people.

So yes, pandering to a racially mixed catholic church group in suburban Wisconsin is just as much identity politics as it is going to an LGBT crisis center in New York City.

Again, I have stated that many times, and you seem to be ignoring it .

Because having gone through this thread, you are mistaken.

You are confusing political issues with identity politics which has to do with pandering to what a person is - Female, Male, Young, Old, White, Black, Brown, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Italian, Cuban, Mexican, Irish etc. Identity politics does NOT have to do with one's positions on free trade, healthcare, police issues, public schools, global warming, these are political issues that can appeal to anyone regardless of who they are.

Both parties may play identity politics but it is the Democratic Party that has made a fine art of it. It is constant among the Democrats and obvious to anyone such as myself who has watched most of the primary debates of both parties.

[tickyul]

My plan is going perfectly.......Murrrca is crumbling from Hyper-Retardation-syndrome.

Of course the country is divided and racial-group-A wants to knock-down racial-group-B......ah-hah, human-nature takes its natural course.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by LINative

Because having gone through this thread, you are mistaken.

Based on the rest of your post, you actually agree with me on things like religion and labeling them as Identity politics.

Which makes what I said far more inline with you, than it does you with the person I was reponding to who claimed it wasnt.

You are confusing political issues with identity politics which has to do with pandering to what a person is - Female, Male, Young, Old, White, Black, Brown, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Italian, Cuban, Mexican, Irish etc. Identity politics does NOT have to do with one's positions on free trade, healthcare, police issues, public schools, global warming, these are political issues that can appeal to anyone regardless of who they are.

Im not confusing them at all.

You are claiming that because these things affect people of all races, that they are in a different category, but that is a distinction without a different.

It doesnt matter if I group someone by color, race, gender, or an issue they care about, it is still a grouping and pandering to that specific constituency.

Both parties may play identity politics but it is the Democratic Party that has made a fine art of it. It is constant among the Democrats and obvious to anyone such as myself who has watched most of the primary debates of both parties.

Republicans spent a large chunk of the early debates discussing whether Donald Trump was religious enough to win evangelicals, while at the same time attacking Ben Carson for being a 7 day adventist and Romney for being a mormon.

You may personally believe one side does it more than another, but I just think its one side pandering to a different group than the other.