Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Matt]

 

[Evan]

Come on Evan. Don't play stupid. You know that for the past fifty years democrats have enacted policy after policy that has once again enslaved blacks. This time their masters are the government and the democrat party. They have given them all the freebies in exchange for their vote. And sadly, the majority went right along with the scheme. LBJ reportedly said "I'll have these niggers voting democrat for the next two hundred years". Knowing what we do about LBJ I think the quote is quite likely his sentiments. The dems enrich a few of the national leaders (Jackson, Sharpton, Hooks, etc.) and the local NAACP so called reverends and it's their job to keep the masses in line. And it has worked pretty well for them for fifty years. I have said many times that at some point enough blacks are going to have an epiphany. I think that has begun over the past several years. Thus the sudden change in democrats from border security to open borders. They (dems) need a permanent underclass dependent on the Federal Government. A 10-15 % movement of blacks away from the democrat party means they are over as far as national elections are concerned. And Trump realizes this and is working to win them over.

I disagree, but it's largely an issue of perception. I don't think Democrats have enslaved blacks anymore than Republicans enslaved white working class voters (who frequently vote against their own self-interest in areas like healthcare, taxation, and economic policy). We agree that our government incentivizes people to be dependent on it. That's true of many welfare programs meant to reduce poverty, Trump's subsidies to rural farmers, and GOP programs that benefit the rich more than any other social class. As has been the case for some time now, most Democratic programs are centered around helping the poor and most GOP programs are centered around helping Corporate America and the wealthy.

We currently have a system that panders to the poor, the working class, large corporate interests, and the wealthy. No group has seen as little progress as the American middle class. Republicans convinced middle class voters to support them for years with the idea that one day they too would be a part of the elite. Democrats, similarly, convinced poor voters that Republicans don't care about them, and that being dependent on government payments is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed of.

I think it is reductionist to say that Democrats enslaved black people. For decades, white working class voters (particularly those in unions) strongly supported Democrats. Largely because of FDR's social programs that many felt saved them from certain starvation. As the Civil Rights movement began to take place, white working class voters became increasingly hostile towards "liberals" that sought to bus black students into their their communities, give preference to minority workers in education or hiring, and expanded social programs they felt predominantly benefited minorities. They felt anger and resentment that money, jobs, and a good education, etc were essentially being "gifted" to minorities. Why did they have to work back-breaking, dangerous, or filthy jobs to provide for their families when others were getting the same benefits for nothing (in their view)?

White working class voters began to shift towards Republicans because liberal social programs made them increasingly sceptical of the federal government, and Republicans ran on a message of reducing the size of government. It wasn't that these voters had an issue with social welfare programs -- remember most of them saw FDR as a hero -- it was moreso that they felt social welfare programs should benefit those that deserve it. In their view, minorities were receiving benefits simply for being a minority.

We've really seen this come out into the open as a result of Trump's election. White working class voters have zero issue with Trump subsidizing farmers or using the might of the government to save blue-collar jobs that are largely populated by whites. They have zero issue with government spending as long as it goes towards programs they believe are a benefit to their communities, families, and themselves. What they continue to be hostile to are programs they believe were established by "liberals" that they feel exclude them in favor of minorities.

They are totally on-board with Trump using the federal government's power to expand treatment programs for those caught up in the opioid epidemic (a social epidemic that is largely, but not exclusively, impacting white working class communities). They are in total agreement that the government should focus on treatment instead of jailing users and addicts. This is in stark contrast to how these same voters believed the government should act when it came to the crack epidemic. They fully buy into Trump's rhetoric that our border with Mexico is fueling the opioid epidemic even though most of the heroin and fentanyl flooding our communities comes from Asia (China, Afghanistan, etc). During the crack epidemic these same voters wanted to lock up all the addicts and throw away the key, and they also thought it wasn't the role of the federal government to help those who had become addicted. Now, they plead with Trump to do something to save their communities, they plead for the government to have tolerance for and provide assistance to their sons, fathers, brothers, etc that are addicted to opioids.

Why the difference? I certainly don't think it is due to racism -- at least that's not the primary or majority reason why there's a different attitude. It's something else that people often confuse with racism...tribalism. It's not unique to white working class voters, either. Black voters also tend to be plagued with tribalism. It's why some now mock or ridicule white communities plagued by opioids (certainly not all or most, but it's definitely an attitude present among some black voters) and ask why should they have sympathy for whites addicted to opioids when many of them have family members incarcerated for marijuana or other drugs like crack.

It's also why some urban minorities mock white working class voters in economically depressed areas. "Welcome to the club" they sometimes say. Or, they ask, why these white workers haven't migrated from their communities to cities like they did 50 years ago. Where was the sympathy of the white working class for the plight of economically depressed urban communities over the past few decades? And you know what? They're right to question the hypocrisy. They're not, however, right to mock, ridicule, or callously cold-shoulder the white communities scourged by opioids or the loss of manufacturing jobs. Just as how those white working class voters were (and are) wrong to ignore or ridicule the plight of urban communities. It's exactly what Trump chose to do when he attacked Elijah Cummings for the issues in his district. It's something Trump has done more than once. Above all, it's an appeal to tribalism. And, to some extent, sadly, it's also an appeal to racists that still see minorities as inferior.

Minority voters support Democrats because they believe they're the ones most likely to do things that benefit them and their communities. It's the same reason white working class voters support Trump and the GOP. And, yes, there's also racist tendencies or feelings that also play a role in how voters are catered to.

So, no, I don't see black voters as being "enslaved" to Democrats anymore than I see white working class voters being enslaved to Trump and the GOP. Tribalism is a choice. It's not an involuntary condition.

 

[Lori]

Then I guess you don't fall into the "all." I thought it was a pretty well-known fact that Trump's largest base of support is white male Boomers, and that they tend to be his most ardent and loyal supporters. They will not criticize Trump no matter what he does or says.

I'll try again to explain what I was saying in the most basic way I know how. White male Baby Boomers don't have some special ability to discern what is racist nor do they have some kind of special ability to define what racism means. They don't CARE if everyone else thinks what Trump said is racist. Their logic is: Trump said it, thus it should be defended. They'll defend anything he says or does. They're sycophants. In other words, it's not that they've got some innate ability to understand what's racist and what's not better than the rest of the American public -- they simply don't care.

Poll after poll has shown that young voters, female voters, poor voters, suburban voters, minority voters, etc all adjust their approval (or favorability) ratings of Trump in response to Trump's most recent behavior and actions. Guess who doesn't? White males age 55+. Their support for Trump has changed very little no matter what has taken place (whether it be Charlottesville, family separation of immigrants, or any other public opinion moving event).

The "why" is simple. They're the people Trump was talking about when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they'd still vote for him.

If anyone else was confused or didn't understand, please let me know. I thought the Fox News polling data I posted before my comment was sufficient context. Especially for those who frequently read and post in this thread. I've brought up white male Baby Boomers more than once. Even in the past 10 pages or so. Trump's behavior, lying, and frequent Twitter attacks don't bother them. They see it as a feature and not a bug -- unlike most Americans (even other groups of people who generally support Trump).

(I’m a Generation X raised by Baby Boomers that had one lived past 2006 they wouldn’t like Trump’s uncouth and immoral ways nor does the one living and nor do I)

Let me tell you something, those “Boomers” have seen it all politically, most were teens and young adults during the 60’s, a good bit served their country and most are religious and moral.
They know racism, they grew up in an era where “colored” people were treated as animals and less than whites. Separate bathrooms, water fountains, pools and schools. The back of a bus or any place so a white person came first. Their parents were more than likely racists after being taught for years to fear, sometimes hate and think of blacks as second class citizens.

But growing up I was taught by these Boomers that we were all equal and to love one another, as were my friends that were raised by Boomers.

Trump is a business man, he’s rich and he is a baby boomer as well but he’s not a racist (he’s screwed over all races (mostly whites) during his business dealings). I think his Dad and he had shoddy housing for poor people back in the 70’s.
He is more of an elitist than anything.

You said:
White male Baby Boomers don't have some special ability to discern what is racist nor do they have some kind of special ability to define what racism means.

Wow, just wow!!
So with all that you posted for my poor pitiful mind to understand....this is your WHY??

So your saying these men that have been around longer than you’ve been alive and lived during racism, have no idea?

There are still living Americans part of the greatest generation (born 1900’s-late 1920’s), my father in law and a good friend we camp with.
I’m curious where they fall in the special racism abilities? They were born in a very racist era!

This generation of snowflakes are so offended, for example, manhole is offensive now, he and she is offensive, I believe after Obama and the chip-on-their-shoulder liberals fussed about everything (not about the low morals of society) that when Trump came in, these men where thinking that finally there’s someone that isn’t going to tiptoe.
They’re from a generation that didn’t have grey areas, they were steadfast and true.

Why should they protest? We have those special generations throwing water on police officers?

I wish I could support our President but I don’t trust him. However, what he does isn’t because he’s racist.

 

[Evan]

I don't understand what's going on here.
"How many GOP members of Congress are black? That's what I thought..." Are you insinuating that the GOP are keeping black people from running for Congress? If so, I'd like to see your proof. If that's not what you're suggesting then what was the point of this statement? You can't make someone run for office, and by reading the rest of your post, it's clear black people generally have low opinions of Republicans so why would they be lining up to run on their ticket? The logic doesn't line up, therefore, the Republicans by simple math would have fewer black people in Congress. Or am I missing some greater point here? If it is the 'why' of the matter, why do black people have low opinions of Republicans? Well that's something that could be discussed, but I think it deserves an actual conversation and not just some remarks designed to prove how bad the party is because Trump is at the head. Also, the Democrats, in my opinion, have abused the black voters for years by taking advantage of their good-will by promising them the moon and giving them moon dust. Election after election we watch the promises given and at the end of the politician's term, how many promises were kept? Democrats do not stand on some mighty throne. They promise much and make good on very little. But that, too, is a discussion that could be had. But, I quit posting here because this has turned into the I Hate Trump Show and I'm just over it. Believe it or not, there are other shitshows taking place out there. Other topics we could be discussing. Yes, he's the Pres. But he isn't the only person in office. And he isn't the only fire that needs tending.

Just so that you don't think my "read the thread" comment was meant to be flip, let me expound a little bit. The part I bolded is exactly what I meant. We're in total agreement. I'm honestly not sure how you thought what I said was somehow about the GOP keeping black candidates from running. I've never even had a thought in my brain that the GOP doesn't want black candidates. I think the GOP will take all the black candidates they can get. And why wouldn't they?

As to why black voters have a low opinion of the Republican Party, I just discussed that in my reply to Matt today and in an earlier response to him. Obviously there's myriad reasons why, but the predominate reason is because of tribalism and a belief that the Democrats are on their side whereas they believe the GOP is not.

I'm not the only one raising this issue. Mia Love and Will Hurd have both spoken about this topic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/will-hurd-shouldnt-only-african-american-republican-house-representatives-1447928?amp=1

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/new...t-the-party-with-black-voters/?outputType=amp

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that lately you've become kind of anti-Anti-Trump -- at least to some extent. But here's the thing: Trump is unquestionably relevant to this topic. Not only is he President, but he's the leader of the Republican Party. Most Americans believe Trump has hurt racial relations (or don't agree with how he's handled race relations). That includes a significant number of Republicans, and even a good number of Trump supporters agree. In addition to being the leader of the GOP and POTUS, Trump has frequently inserted himself into controversies involving race. And, obviously, he's also been the one who's sparked a number of those controversies. Do you think Trump's behavior and actions have increased minority support for the GOP? Do you think Trump has expanded his base since his election?

Trump is especially relevant to the number of black Republicans in Congress. He only gave tepid support to Mia Love during her re-election campaign, and celebrated when she lost. It's not just that. A lot more GOP members of Congress have retired since Trump's election than Democratic members. TONS more, in fact. Why do you think that is? I think it's because they're tired of having to constantly defend Trump and tired of his inability to avoid inserting himself into every single controversy in our country.

Trump likes to cherry-pick numbers from the polls most favorable to him, but in aggregate George W. Bush significantly outperformed Trump in favorability and job approval ratings among minorities. That also extended to elections themselves. Bush won 35% of Hispanics in his first election and 40% in his second. He also won 11% of black voters. Trump won 29% of Hispanics and between 7-8% of black voters. Trump's current approval among black voters has consistently been in the 6-13% range. In contrast, even with lower favorability ratings, Bush didn't drop below 15% approval with black voters until he was under 35% overall approval. What's amazing, however, is that Bush's approval by Hispanics rarely differed from whites more than 1-6% outside of a brief period at the end of his first term and beginning of his 2nd term. In fact, for most of his Presidency, Bush's approval rating with Hispanics was only 1-3% different than his approval rating with whites.

Why do you think Trump's approval ratings with Hispanics pale in comparison to George W. Bush? Could it be because George W. never accused Mexicans of being rapists and bad people? And that he didn't constantly denigrate immigrants? Lord knows the media and black community leaders didn't give George W. a fair shake. Yet he did better than Trump with black voters? Why is that? I think the most likely answer is because of Trump's incendiary rhetoric on race.

 

[Evan]

(I’m a Generation X raised by Baby Boomers that had one lived past 2006 they wouldn’t like Trump’s uncouth and immoral ways nor does the one living and nor do I)

Let me tell you something, those “Boomers” have seen it all politically, most were teens and young adults during the 60’s, a good bit served their country and most are religious and moral.
They know racism, they grew up in an era where “colored” people were treated as animals and less than whites. Separate bathrooms, water fountains, pools and schools. The back of a bus or any place so a white person came first. Their parents were more than likely racists after being taught for years to fear, sometimes hate and think of blacks as second class citizens.

But growing up I was taught by these Boomers that we were all equal and to love one another, as were my friends that were raised by Boomers.

Trump is a business man, he’s rich and he is a baby boomer as well but he’s not a racist (he’s screwed over all races (mostly whites) during his business dealings). I think his Dad and he had shoddy housing for poor people back in the 70’s.
He is more of an elitist than anything.

You said:
White male Baby Boomers don't have some special ability to discern what is racist nor do they have some kind of special ability to define what racism means.

Wow, just wow!!
So with all that you posted for my poor pitiful mind to understand....this is your WHY??

So your saying these men that have been around longer than you’ve been alive and lived during racism, have no idea?

There are still living Americans part of the greatest generation (born 1900’s-late 1920’s), my father in law and a good friend we camp with.
I’m curious where they fall in the special racism abilities? They were born in a very racist era!

This generation of snowflakes are so offended, for example, manhole is offensive now, he and she is offensive, I believe after Obama and the chip-on-their-shoulder liberals fussed about everything (not about the low morals of society) that when Trump came in, these men where thinking that finally there’s someone that isn’t going to tiptoe.
They’re from a generation that didn’t have grey areas, they were steadfast and true.

Why should they protest? We have those special generations throwing water on police officers?

I wish I could support our President but I don’t trust him. However, what he does isn’t because he’s racist.

Hate to burst your bubble, but half of the Berkeley City Council (the group who passed that ordinance) are Baby Boomers. All but two of its members are Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers. There's one older Millennial (who is 36/37 years old and only technically a Millennial in some generational definitions) and a young man who is either Gen Z or the youngest possible age for a Millennial. And, yes, his district is primarily made up of college students.

 

[Lori]

Hate to burst your bubble, but half of the Berkeley City Council (the group who passed that ordinance) are Baby Boomers. All but two of its members are Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers. There's one older Millennial (who is 36/37 years old and only technically a Millennial in some generational definitions) and a young man who is either Gen Z or the youngest possible age for a Millennial. And, yes, his district is primarily made up of college students.

Bad example on my part, it’s California so... yeah...

 

[gangstonc]

Before becoming DNI, Jim Clapper had worked in U.S. intelligence for nearly fifty years and personally headed two of the nation's 17 intel agencies. By comparison, John Ratcliffe was the mayor of Heath, Texas, pop., 8000.

Saw this on Twitter. Trump is more concerned with loyalty to him than he is with proper skills to do a job. Why does trump need so much loyalty?

I have also seen that Trump does not get to name an acting director for this job.

 

[Arcadia]

Just so that you don't think my "read the thread" comment was meant to be flip, let me expound a little bit. The part I bolded is exactly what I meant. We're in total agreement. I'm honestly not sure how you thought what I said was somehow about the GOP keeping black candidates from running. I've never even had a thought in my brain that the GOP doesn't want black candidates. I think the GOP will take all the black candidates they can get. And why wouldn't they?

As to why black voters have a low opinion of the Republican Party, I just discussed that in my reply to Matt today and in an earlier response to him. Obviously there's myriad reasons why, but the predominate reason is because of tribalism and a belief that the Democrats are on their side whereas they believe the GOP is not.

I'm not the only one raising this issue. Mia Love and Will Hurd have both spoken about this topic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/will-hurd-shouldnt-only-african-american-republican-house-representatives-1447928?amp=1

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/new...t-the-party-with-black-voters/?outputType=amp

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that lately you've become kind of anti-Anti-Trump -- at least to some extent. But here's the thing: Trump is unquestionably relevant to this topic. Not only is he President, but he's the leader of the Republican Party. Most Americans believe Trump has hurt racial relations (or don't agree with how he's handled race relations). That includes a significant number of Republicans, and even a good number of Trump supporters agree. In addition to being the leader of the GOP and POTUS, Trump has frequently inserted himself into controversies involving race. And, obviously, he's also been the one who's sparked a number of those controversies. Do you think Trump's behavior and actions have increased minority support for the GOP? Do you think Trump has expanded his base since his election?

Trump is especially relevant to the number of black Republicans in Congress. He only gave tepid support to Mia Love during her re-election campaign, and celebrated when she lost. It's not just that. A lot more GOP members of Congress have retired since Trump's election than Democratic members. TONS more, in fact. Why do you think that is? I think it's because they're tired of having to constantly defend Trump and tired of his inability to avoid inserting himself into every single controversy in our country.

Trump likes to cherry-pick numbers from the polls most favorable to him, but in aggregate George W. Bush significantly outperformed Trump in favorability and job approval ratings among minorities. That also extended to elections themselves. Bush won 35% of Hispanics in his first election and 40% in his second. He also won 11% of black voters. Trump won 29% of Hispanics and between 7-8% of black voters. Trump's current approval among black voters has consistently been in the 6-13% range. In contrast, even with lower favorability ratings, Bush didn't drop below 15% approval with black voters until he was under 35% overall approval. What's amazing, however, is that Bush's approval by Hispanics rarely differed from whites more than 1-6% outside of a brief period at the end of his first term and beginning of his 2nd term. In fact, for most of his Presidency, Bush's approval rating with Hispanics was only 1-3% different than his approval rating with whites.

Why do you think Trump's approval ratings with Hispanics pale in comparison to George W. Bush? Could it be because George W. never accused Mexicans of being rapists and bad people? And that he didn't constantly denigrate immigrants? Lord knows the media and black community leaders didn't give George W. a fair shake. Yet he did better than Trump with black voters? Why is that? I think the most likely answer is because of Trump's incendiary rhetoric on race.

I was honestly confused by your comment to Matt because I didn't understand it. That's why I questioned it. Thank you for the clarification. I hated even questioning it, but to be totally honest, I feel like you hate Trump on such a visceral level that sometimes you paint with a broad brush. At least, that's how it comes across to me at times. We discussed Evangelicals not too long ago and we came to an understanding. I don't think we are disagreeing so much as we are just misreading each other.

No, I'm not kind of anti-Trump. I'm firmly anti-Trump. I'm just not in a perpetual state of shock and pissed off. He is exactly who I said he was. And he hasn't exactly been hiding his crazy. He showed himself during the Primaries to be exactly who he is today. He's not exactly hiding the ball here. I'm sure if someone was to dig through the archives and pulled up my old posts, they would find I predicted everything you just replied to me with. So I can't really disagree with anything you said. I predicted all these things would happen. So, none of these shock nor surprises me. I'm just over here in my corner of the world going... yeah so that's happened. But here's the thing. He's not a permanent fixture. He'll either be here for another term or he won't. Yes, I know he'll leave repercussions. I said that, too. But so does Congress. And we have to deal with them for a lot longer. As for race relations. Obama started the race bating and set us back decades. I'll argue that point with anyone. Trump is stepping in and taking the reigns as far as I'm concerned. Am I mad about it? Of course I am! But let's just not pretend this mess started in 2016. It didn't. That's all I'm saying.

 

[KoD]

I really don't know how much Obama had to do with starting race bating. I feel like the shift certainly accelerated when he was in office but I recall things becoming very PC among communities on the internet well before Obama. There was a big upwelling from the PC culture about anti-muslim rhetoric and that slowly shifted to African Americans while everyone and their parents jumped on the social media bandwagon. Certainly anyone can make the case Obama was an ancillary character. I think that he was getting behind what the PC culture was perpetuating. How many times does a president actually start anything vs responding to the public narrative? Going to the moon? I couldn't say.. but what I can say is that flourishing in the Democratic "social media" forums, racism was a hot topic before Obama was headlining on the Fox New opinion anchors time slot for stoking racial tension.

 

[Matt]

Before becoming DNI, Jim Clapper had worked in U.S. intelligence for nearly fifty years and personally headed two of the nation's 17 intel agencies. By comparison, John Ratcliffe was the mayor of Heath, Texas, pop., 8000.

Saw this on Twitter. Trump is more concerned with loyalty to him than he is with proper skills to do a job. Why does trump need so much loyalty?

I have also seen that Trump does not get to name an acting director for this job.

I don't care what he's done in the past Clapper is unfit. He has proven himself to be a political hack and no more.

 

[gangstonc]

I don't care what he's done in the past Clapper is unfit. He has proven himself to be a political hack and no more.

I’m not saying he should have the job, I’m saying Ratcliffe doesn’t have the appropriate level of experience.

Since trump is signing the 9/11 victims compensation fund bill today, I thought this was appropriate: https://t.co/owoblIx5ZJ

 

[gangstonc]

Indefensible.

 

[gangstonc]

Reading dershowitz’s comments about how he feels the age of consent should be lowered is disgusting.

 

[Matt]

I disagree, but it's largely an issue of perception. I don't think Democrats have enslaved blacks anymore than Republicans enslaved white working class voters (who frequently vote against their own self-interest in areas like healthcare, taxation, and economic policy). We agree that our government incentivizes people to be dependent on it. That's true of many welfare programs meant to reduce poverty, Trump's subsidies to rural farmers, and GOP programs that benefit the rich more than any other social class. As has been the case for some time now, most Democratic programs are centered around helping the poor and most GOP programs are centered around helping Corporate America and the wealthy.

We currently have a system that panders to the poor, the working class, large corporate interests, and the wealthy. No group has seen as little progress as the American middle class. Republicans convinced middle class voters to support them for years with the idea that one day they too would be a part of the elite. Democrats, similarly, convinced poor voters that Republicans don't care about them, and that being dependent on government payments is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed of.

I think it is reductionist to say that Democrats enslaved black people. For decades, white working class voters (particularly those in unions) strongly supported Democrats. Largely because of FDR's social programs that many felt saved them from certain starvation. As the Civil Rights movement began to take place, white working class voters became increasingly hostile towards "liberals" that sought to bus black students into their their communities, give preference to minority workers in education or hiring, and expanded social programs they felt predominantly benefited minorities. They felt anger and resentment that money, jobs, and a good education, etc were essentially being "gifted" to minorities. Why did they have to work back-breaking, dangerous, or filthy jobs to provide for their families when others were getting the same benefits for nothing (in their view)?

White working class voters began to shift towards Republicans because liberal social programs made them increasingly sceptical of the federal government, and Republicans ran on a message of reducing the size of government. It wasn't that these voters had an issue with social welfare programs -- remember most of them saw FDR as a hero -- it was moreso that they felt social welfare programs should benefit those that deserve it. In their view, minorities were receiving benefits simply for being a minority.

We've really seen this come out into the open as a result of Trump's election. White working class voters have zero issue with Trump subsidizing farmers or using the might of the government to save blue-collar jobs that are largely populated by whites. They have zero issue with government spending as long as it goes towards programs they believe are a benefit to their communities, families, and themselves. What they continue to be hostile to are programs they believe were established by "liberals" that they feel exclude them in favor of minorities.

They are totally on-board with Trump using the federal government's power to expand treatment programs for those caught up in the opioid epidemic (a social epidemic that is largely, but not exclusively, impacting white working class communities). They are in total agreement that the government should focus on treatment instead of jailing users and addicts. This is in stark contrast to how these same voters believed the government should act when it came to the crack epidemic. They fully buy into Trump's rhetoric that our border with Mexico is fueling the opioid epidemic even though most of the heroin and fentanyl flooding our communities comes from Asia (China, Afghanistan, etc). During the crack epidemic these same voters wanted to lock up all the addicts and throw away the key, and they also thought it wasn't the role of the federal government to help those who had become addicted. Now, they plead with Trump to do something to save their communities, they plead for the government to have tolerance for and provide assistance to their sons, fathers, brothers, etc that are addicted to opioids.

Why the difference? I certainly don't think it is due to racism -- at least that's not the primary or majority reason why there's a different attitude. It's something else that people often confuse with racism...tribalism. It's not unique to white working class voters, either. Black voters also tend to be plagued with tribalism. It's why some now mock or ridicule white communities plagued by opioids (certainly not all or most, but it's definitely an attitude present among some black voters) and ask why should they have sympathy for whites addicted to opioids when many of them have family members incarcerated for marijuana or other drugs like crack.

It's also why some urban minorities mock white working class voters in economically depressed areas. "Welcome to the club" they sometimes say. Or, they ask, why these white workers haven't migrated from their communities to cities like they did 50 years ago. Where was the sympathy of the white working class for the plight of economically depressed urban communities over the past few decades? And you know what? They're right to question the hypocrisy. They're not, however, right to mock, ridicule, or callously cold-shoulder the white communities scourged by opioids or the loss of manufacturing jobs. Just as how those white working class voters were (and are) wrong to ignore or ridicule the plight of urban communities. It's exactly what Trump chose to do when he attacked Elijah Cummings for the issues in his district. It's something Trump has done more than once. Above all, it's an appeal to tribalism. And, to some extent, sadly, it's also an appeal to racists that still see minorities as inferior.

Minority voters support Democrats because they believe they're the ones most likely to do things that benefit them and their communities. It's the same reason white working class voters support Trump and the GOP. And, yes, there's also racist tendencies or feelings that also play a role in how voters are catered to.

So, no, I don't see black voters as being "enslaved" to Democrats anymore than I see white working class voters being enslaved to Trump and the GOP. Tribalism is a choice. It's not an involuntary condition.

I think my original point is still accurate. Look at Baltimore and the attention it's getting this week. Perfect example. And you can go around the country and point to many communities that have been under democrat control for 40-50 years and you have seen a collapse in civil society, law and order and economic progress.

After Freddie gray Obama gave Baltimore 1.8 billion dollars to help clean up and restore some communities. Where'd it go ? Elijah Cummings wife is under several ethics complaints if my memory serves me.

 

[Matt]

Reading dershowitz’s comments about how he feels the age of consent should be lowered is disgusting.

I wonder why he feels that way ? Not!

 

[Matt]

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg[/IMG][B]Donald J. Trump[/B]‏Verified account @[B]realDonaldTrump[/B] 11h11 hours ago
More
Baltimore’s numbers are the worst in the United States on Crime and the Economy. Billions of dollars have been pumped in over the years, but to no avail. The money was stolen or wasted. Ask Elijah Cummings where it went. He should investigate himself with his Oversight Committee!

 

[Matt]

Rep. Cummings, when you pick a fight with Trump you get a fight right back!

 

[Matt]

Why do republicans keep blocking election security bills?

McConnell said the dems were attempting to Federalize what are state elections. We don't have one large federal elections. We have fifty separate state run elections and the Congress has appropriated almost $400 million for added security. Also, the mandate to report every contact with a foreign entity is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Lori]

I really don't know how much Obama had to do with starting race bating. I feel like the shift certainly accelerated when he was in office but I recall things becoming very PC among communities on the internet well before Obama. There was a big upwelling from the PC culture about anti-muslim rhetoric and that slowly shifted to African Americans while everyone and their parents jumped on the social media bandwagon. Certainly anyone can make the case Obama was an ancillary character. I think that he was getting behind what the PC culture was perpetuating. How many times does a president actually start anything vs responding to the public narrative? Going to the moon? I couldn't say.. but what I can say is that flourishing in the Democratic "social media" forums, racism was a hot topic before Obama was headlining on the Fox New opinion anchors time slot for stoking racial tension.

Nor more than Trump is the blame for every single evil the MSM cries out. I believe Obama added fuel to the fire of cry-wolf racism in subtle ways throughout his Presidency. Yes, there was injustice for the black community but he could have discouraged the riots and hate for all law enforcement.
I’d never seen the nation so racially divided after he left office!

 

[Lori]

Evan, you burst my bubble but you never explained how you came up with this observation...

White male Baby Boomers don't have some special ability to discern what is racist nor do they have some kind of special ability to define what racism means.