You really think he's talking about Ben Carson in the context of a just conducted interview?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
I mean, this seems like a common sense understanding of what 'identity politics" is about. It's not about being excited that Ben Carson is leading HUD. It's about having diverse voices represented and having those voices speak on behalf of their communities rather than throwing them under the bus.
In terms of demographics, white workers are underrepresented in this group compared to the nation as a whole; in 2015, they made up 59 percent of the working class versus 64 percent of the adult U.S. population. By 2032, people of color are set to become the majority in this section of the labor force.
Huh.....
Huh...
I guess 41% versus 36% is disproportionate? Huh. Okay.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/12/who-is-working-class-in-3-infographics/547559/
1) A Republican
2) When did Ben Carson ever imply or give the impression that people should vote for him because he's black?
and now you know why i sometimes just respond to bad arguments with meme images
I just wasted 15 minutes that i should have been getting sleep on digging up old posts on neogaf to respond to bullshit. i should just stick to meme images next time
I was just giving example how parties use PoCs to imply that they have the groups interest at heart.
Maybe I'm off, but I think my post agrees with the point you're making (that PoC are more likely to be working class than white people) and yet your post has a tone like you're upset about what I said.In terms of demographics, white workers are underrepresented in this group compared to the nation as a whole; in 2015, they made up 59 percent of the working class versus 64 percent of the adult U.S. population. By 2032, people of color are set to become the majority in this section of the labor force.
Huh.....
Huh...
I guess 41% versus 36% is disproportionate? Huh. Okay.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/12/who-is-working-class-in-3-infographics/547559/
Ben Carson absolutely used his identity as a black man to advance the argument poverty was a mindset not a legacy of institutional racism, and that his life story proves that, and went so far as to quote MLK to justify bootstraps.
I thought we were talking about the individual politicians. Not their parties.
Fine he's the exception that proves the rule.
What, are you telling me that my apology wasn't genuine? Who's telling who how they think, now?
He moved out to Vermont after college, because it seems he simply liked rural areas better. (Something which is another overlap with the "old old old school socialist" mentality I attribute a number of his philisophical problems to.)
No, my point is that there are a lot more white working class then POC working class, so claiming that helping the working class helps POC more than white workers is disingenuous at best.
Can you cite anything that shows the disparity in wealth between white and poc working class?
I mean Herman Cain did absolutely the same thing "elect a real black man".
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/cain-im-the-real-black-man-052312
She's not a politician but this is also basically Candice Owens whole grift.
I feel a little like I'm picking on black figures here I'm sure there are some other examples in different backgrounds.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/black-white-wealth-gap-perceptions.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briant...americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#201483987a48
http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
A good one here to showcase this is to look at chart 3 in the third link, and swap to the Median instead of the average.
There was a small stink up when AOC endorsed a white male progressive over a lesbian Native American. Some wanted AOC to endorse the latter because of her identity, not her policies.
no, not at all
just tying back to my earlier discussion about whether or not this discussion was worthy of more effort than meme image response or not
your apology was fine. in this back and forth where you have
1. not been able to distinguish been editorial writing and quote from a person
2. selectively highlighted parts of a quote to wildly take it out of context and (intentionally?) misinterpret it
3. accused me of lying about my views
your apology was probably your only good post
You know considering Bernie's "Vote for me I'm a woman" jab was an obvious take that towards Hillary, I'm starting to think that we should probably be asking who on the Democrat's side pull this.
In absolute numbers, sure. White people are like 65% of the country. I don't see how what I am saying is untrue though. People of color are disproportionately more likely to benefit directly from policies like medicare for all than white people are and that is one way, of many that are needed, to get rid of the effects of racism.
Absolutely.Kirblar said:
She just had a kid like 1 or 2 years ago. I don't think she's shown an interest in running right now, but I agree that she'd be a really strong candidate.
That Obama speech was designed to placate regressive whites who were scared by Wright. I doubt Obama himself believed the words coming out of his mouth, let alone most PoC.
None of these seem to compare working class demographics, just racial demographics as a whole, tho.
No argument Bernie has been bad at articulating this stuff in the past, but that latest quote as I said seems like a perfectly fine articulation.
Without the surprise pregnancy I'm pretty sure she'd be in the race this year.
Median will give you the "50% of people are under this bar" line, which will be including your working-class/lower class numbers. (economics/stats definition, not socialist.)
User banned (2 days): hostility
And you haven't had any good posts. So I guess that puts me ahead. Cool.
at least my posts were of sufficient quality where i don't feel the need to apologize for any single one of them
User banned (2 days): hostility
Yeah but you didn't have one of the most moronic takes I've ever read. That has to count for something in Sandstars favor
of course its politics, theres a reason why though correct Hillarys basket of deplorables was spun out to hurt her and most people avoid that rhetoric. They're trying to get elected.
I think alot of people see this in Kamala. After her announcement there was a lot of black people coming out against her with the shes not the candidate for PoCs like she claims. I dont know if she implied that or even if the accusations were true but their was certainly that sentiment.
It may not be about identity in the sense of tokenism(unless it was clearly stated) but about having representation and a voice for a minority over leftist ideological purity.
So essentially, it's just projecting their dislike of a politician by claiming he/she is not "real" "true" or some other nonsense.
Joy. :|
Tokenism is exactly the form of identity politics Bernie and AOC criticize, with AOC being better at expressing it.
No, Kamela has a legit history issue that hurts her with PoC because it's well documented, unavoidable, undeniable, and she owns it.
Last edited:
it was about having representation, but that's not all what AOC and Bernie were for. Representation matters to them, but also policies that support the working class such as Medicare for all. Dvaids' primary opponent supported more progressive policies, so Bernie and AOC endorsed and campaigned for him.
In context of Bernie's quote:
"My main belief is that we need to bring together a coalition of people—of black and white and Latino and Asian-American and Native-American—around a progressive agenda which is prepared to take on an extraordinarily powerful ruling class in this country. That is my view. Many of my opponents do not hold that view, and they think that all that we need is people who are candidates who are black or white, who are black or Latino or woman or gay, regardless of what they stand for, that the end result is diversity."
It doesn't appear he wants diversity of thought or approach. It's got to be progressive to his particular agenda(or it's not a progressive agenda according to the Bernie purity) and it seems AOC feels the same way. That diversity has to serve their ideological ends. That's how it seems to appear racist. More so than the strawman he tries to put it on with the unnamed "opponents".
All political parties or movements are in pursuit of some sort of end, whether ideological, financial, power for power's sake, etc. If their primary interest was ideological diversity, rather than ideological diversity being something they have to put up with to win in different regions, then they wouldn't be parties or movements in the first place.
Yes, a standard needs to be in place to differentiate parties and such. And I don't believe Bernie or AOC are racist. Indigenous people are a very small minority in the USA and it's probably difficult enough to get to a position to be an elected representative without having to overcome even more hurdles within a party. That's more what I'm getting at. It can't always be about achieving a specific ideological standard if it means suppressing an underrepresented minority. They shouldn't go unchallenged either. It's a fine balance that needs to be found and maintained between allowing them the opportunity, allowing them to be challenged and not unnecessarily hindering. And hindering by the more popular and well known and connected members of a party to interfere in a race outside their district seems an unfair challenge to place on on them.
Sharice appears to be everything AOC would want in a candidate so why put yourself in a spot to choose between two progressives in the first place? Doing this could make an enemy in congress from another progressive and for what?
And yet she chose to endorse and campaign for the other guy
Who was the other guy? What made him better than her? Nor does this address the fact she's going to have a tougher time getting Sharice on board for bills or leadership votes from a fellow progressive considering Sharice won the general.
Exactly. If it's not race that was the motivator in this case then it appears that it's some small ideological purity at the expense of indigenous representation.
If sharice won't cooperate for that reason, isn't that on her, not AOC?
I think the dude was on Team Bernie, which would explain things. I don't know for sure because I don't remember his name.
No, Sharice doesn't owe AOC anything. This is why endorsing primaries can backfire, Sharice had a good reason to be angry with AOC since this is not a traditional custom in the Democratic party. AOC's gotten in hot water with Dems over this before. AOC was in the wrong here.
And that leads back to to Bernie's statement and the appearance that he is really the one that wants token followers and not his "opponents".
Brent Welder. He campaigned on M4A and $15 minimum wage while Davids was more open to compromise. And yes, Welder was a Bernie supporter.
I mean;
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ent-welder-democrat-wins-kansas-house-primary
https://www.thepitchkc.com/news/blog/21016726/the-race-for-the-kansas-third-feels-a-lot-like-2016
Seems pretty clear why AOC would go that way no?
- Status