OT: Politics

[ironyusa]

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

So, all race agnostic policies should be tolerable. There's no inferences to be made from your statement.

I'm not sure what to tell you if you're not going to listen to a conservative black political strategist citing poll numbers. Do you have an explanation for the vote disconnect?

You just played the identity politics card; I don't weigh his opinion based on what demographic he comes from.

[PBSteve]

So, all race agnostic policies should be tolerable. There's no inferences to be made from your statement.

And virtually no policies are race agnostic. Unlike you, most people (racists included!) judge policy by outcome rather than as it is written.

You just played the identity politics card; I don't weigh his opinion based on what demographic he comes from.

"See, now I don't have to listen to the experiences of black people"

[cockerpunk]

are we really full circle to steven colbert's joke .... "i don't see race"

yeah, no wonder you don't see racism. lol.


a new fun one came up this morning ... fox news now stating the caravan is a huge problem because of the diseases they carry.

the exact same anchors who defend to the death anti-vaxers.



the most reasonable explanation for this obvious hypocrisy .... racism. mexico has a higher vaccination rate than the USA: https://www.chron.com/news/nation-wo...ns-2097615.php

[PBSteve]

Aren't they mostly from Honduras?

[cockerpunk]

WA post has more information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7ba71b18824c

vaccination rates are comparable or better than US. mexcio in particular is higher than the US by a fair margin, but even honduars and guatamala are pretty high.

meanwhile of course its the same fox news that its your god given right to not vaccinate. thus lowering US vaccination rates.


hint: it was never about health. it is about race.

[ironyusa]

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

And virtually no policies are race agnostic. Unlike you, most people (racists included!) judge policy by outcome rather than as it is written.

Why not just say you agree with Gordon?

Going back to the cases you provided...

Florida felon disenfranchisement - I don't think is a good example.

Georgia's voter purge - I think there is a better case to be made on this with the caveat that if sufficient evidence can be presented that there is, in fact, a fraud issue revolving around falsified IDs then I'd separate issues. Policy to solve the fraud is warranted. Closing polling stations on Sundays - seems like there was pretty clear intent there to explicitly exclude voters.

Border camps - Trump is enforcing existing policy. I see both sides... it sucks that families are being torn apart, but who is really to blame? Nobody made someone come to the US illegally. I don't know the solution, but I agree that there is a problem with the outcome of the policy when enforced. The solution is not do not enforce. It's find a better policy. Of course there is a racially-biased outcome of enforcing policies - it's immigration not necessarily racism.

Again, I believe implicit biases can be educated away. Racism cannot (in most cases). So, in order for your extremist litmus test to work the policy needs to contain explicitly racially-biased language. If the policy is pandering to a sun-conscience bias, then again, lets see the % breakdown. Do it on a single policy. I suggest that preservation & advancement of a socio-economic status is far more prevalent in the language of policy than is race. Race is stratified heavily by economics, so of course an outcome is going to correlate as a result. It's a multivariate context. Why you keep cleaving to this extremist position is only so you can claim a moral high-ground to try and take the implied authority that comes with it.

Simplified for you:

FACT: GoP policies favor the rich: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...vors-the-rich/
FACT: Blacks tend to have lower income: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/r...ial-status.pdf

The obvious implication... republicans must be RACISTS! Nope.

"See, now I don't have to listen to the experiences of black people"

Huh? I said the opinion of 1 guy = the opinion of one guy. Not "people" at all, rather a person. You invented the straw man.

[pbjosh]

Huh? I said the opinion of 1 guy = the opinion of one guy. Not "people" at all, rather a person. You invented the straw man.

Well, him and Gordon are taking turns beating that around, it is pretty worn out. I would like to see where they actually responded to what is said without using one.

That reply was shit Steve. Do you want to try again?

Think of it this way: What if I had Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell linked in, would you HAVE to listen to it, and agree with their position? By your own standard, yes. It is a bad argument, and you should be a bit embarrassed for stating it.

Though Irony, is it interesting how they can't look at individuals for having unique and interesting positions and background, but really get stuck on race? It is so curious.

[pbjosh]

Some small point and shoot replies:

To the bit Steve linked in, there is an increased support for Trump: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/1013212002/

36% is better than 10%. Something is changing there, as if the rhetoric isn't working or something. Something about red pill and #Blexit... who knows.

[Lurker27]

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

I like this, it's sort of the bottom up counter to my "elites using the racism for their political benefit" construction and really shows how it can't be as independent as I originally formulated.

I also tend to adjust my percentage motivation responses upward in response to the polling data you shared, though I still think that explicit racism is not the predominant factor in a multivariate analysis of conservative policy.

That said, everything related to this topic is mainstream media currently (caravan, anti-semitic Synagogue shooting) is depressing and does point me, emotionally, in a more progressive direction.

[pbjosh]

I also tend to adjust my percentage motivation responses upward in response to the polling data you shared

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

This is bullshit. The same would have to be said about the non-whites and hence, the democratic base also, since the percentage is about the same either way.

By using this metric anything racist the GOP is doing the DNC is only 2% less racist.