|
EugeneJ posted:You realize that Hillary getting more black votes than Bernie in the primaries has nothing to do with the number of black voters that will turn out on election day, right
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
In an election that has dramatically showed the real & present ugliness of race relations in the US, in the form of Donald Trump, being opposed by a woman with a very long track record of listening and responding and respectfully talking to minority communities, do you honestly believe that there will be 'low enthusiasm' among those minority communities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Are Bill and Hillary Clinton examples of good outreach to minority voters, in so many words? I'm not really sure why, though. Not to mention the pseudo-racist connotations of Bill Clinton being "America's First Black President" slung around in the 90s. I was a kid then, but my dad had the TV on and kept me politically aware as much as I could understand from an early age. On that note, I think my earliest coherent political memory was the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998, and I would have been around 9 then. Also, not exactly related, but kids born in 1998 who can vote now would have no personal memory of the Clinton administration or even really the W. Bush administration like you or I would. That brings up another question of Clinton's traditional staying power with minority voters if the millennial generation would have no living memory (or appreciation) of her husband's years serving as President. Again, what is the appeal really (beyond the obvious like supporting the DREAM Act primarily benefiting Latino voters, being awesome in general, etc)? Or am I just being an ignorant goon? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:In an election that has dramatically showed the real & present ugliness of race relations in the US, in the form of Donald Trump, being opposed by a woman with a very long track record of listening and responding and respectfully talking to minority communities, do you honestly believe that there will be 'low enthusiasm' among those minority communities? What is at stake for black americans exactly that would send them flocking to the polls in support of Hillary
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You realize that Hillary getting more black votes than Bernie in the primaries has nothing to do with the number of black voters that will turn out on election day, right Yes. I mean historically in terms of turnout, African Americans are one of the highest voting minority groups. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Donald Trump has literally said he wants to institute nationalized stop and frisk We may all not love Hillary. But most recognize she at her absolute worse is the status quo. Which is suboptimal but not setting things back 20 years
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Are Bill and Hillary Clinton examples of good outreach to minority voters, in so many words? I'm not really sure why, though. People born in 1998 are not the people voting in 2016. Like white, black, or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:People born in 1998 are not the people voting in 2016. Are you trying to imply that the 18-22 age demographic won't be voting this year? My original question doesn't have anything to do with whether that demographic will come out in force, just asking why the Clinton legacy still appears to be strong even without that living memory of Bill for millennials. My only real theory is that the Gen X/etc that were aware and voted for Bill in the 90s had kids and have a strong influence in passing down that Dem sympathy to their kids, even though that correlation also happens to be with black voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Black "millennials" to generalize on the whole aren't "enthusiastic" Clinton voters much at all. Most who vote will end up pulling the lever for Hillary. But it's not some love fest. As they are able to look back during Bill's time and his crime bill, and see how much it ended up having a terrible side effect that crushed it's original purpose. While older black folks tend to remember the lovely situation their neighborhoods were in and remember that they were desperate as all hell to have anything done about it. Which lead to a lovely bill with consequences no one thought to see coming. And it's not about passing down Dem sympathy. So much as we quickly realize that the Democrats are the only choice for a Black person who wants their vote to even semi matter to make on the federal level. Republicans are literally out here trying to take our right to vote away, like the instant the VRA was weakened by the lovely supreme court all of these red states had minority voter suppression in place. The Democrats are literally the only tent in this country we are truly welcome under(unless you are wealthy and famous enough to make probably 80% of the problems we face go away(until you slip up anyway)) . So we severely go democratic. However just from conversations I engage in and hear in various locations. There are a whoole lot of Black people who are conservative as all hell when it comes to anything that isn't like law enforcement based, or things that directly affect them(Black Males can be bad about this especially).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
This is really good stuff, thank you for contributing!  Not really that related, but it came to mind reading your post: I know you mentioned about Democrats being the only real way to even have somewhat of a voice in federal government matters and Republicans blatantly and explicitly suppressing the 'black vote' (which should be painfully obvious to everyone by now, which is why I was trying to avoid glaring issues and look to more root/deeper correlations), but how does that account for those clubs you see like "African-Americans For Trump" or whatever handful of other minority political groups/LGBTQ groups in favor of Trump? Is it some kind of extreme FYGM cynicism or something else? Because otherwise I'm just  at that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:This is really good stuff, thank you for contributing! a mix of ignorance, sexism, FYGM(shouts to Peter Thiel) mostly Also those groups are such a blip on the radar the media gives them a platform because they are such a unicorn(I.E why CNN/Fox/MSNBC had so many segments called "BERNIE VOTER WHO'S VOTING FOR TRUMP"). And Social media allows for p much anyone to put an avatar of a black person and role play out their Black person voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
In my opinion, they should just remove laws that intrinsically make low income neighborhoods undesirable to live in and then let those communities set their own own social and moral standards. They should also stop pandering false promises for votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:What is at stake for black americans exactly that would send them flocking to the polls in support of Hillary Are you asking what they have to lose?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Are you asking what they have to lose? Yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Yes Have you tried looking back at what poo poo has been like historically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:In my opinion, they should just remove laws that intrinsically make low income neighborhoods undesirable to live in and then let those communities set their own own social and moral standards. They should also stop pandering false promises for votes. I'm pretty sure Trump Sr. was one of the ones redlining saying that "we don't rent to n*****s." with a young Donald agreeing. That was mentioned in the USPOL thread. I agree, it's ugly and must be dismantled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
One thing I haven't seen discussed is that when there are Republican organizations that attract minorities, they are often centered around issues where there is no outreach. The Republicans actually offer those groups what they are looking for. So in that sense white politicians are reaching out to some subset of the population, just not many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
I think this tweet sums up the millennial black vote pretty well https://twitter.com/dr3w199x/status/794607421629014017
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Q: How can white politicians reach out to minorities? D&D: You can't improve on the perfection that is Hilary Rodham Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Yes Voting rights. Should I continue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Dexo posted:a mix of ignorance, sexism, FYGM(shouts to Peter Thiel) mostly I feel like some of these people also realized Republicans are desperate to look inclusive and Not Racist, and any minority with few enough scruples to assist that narrative is going to be handsomely rewarded with money and attention. And there's always a place for religious extremism within the Republican Party too, regardless of color. See Ben "Hillary is literally a servant of Satan" Carson.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Voting rights. Should I continue? If the DNC just gifts their nomination to Hillary, then why does their vote matter anyways
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
please don't argue or acknowledge dude(or lady) who is obviously trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Are there any American white politicians who "authentically" reached out to minorities? I'm legit asking, there was a time I would've thought something like, "The New Deal was pretty progressive, with a genuine attempt to improve the life of all Americans, so clearly FDR must've been Authentic in his urge to help all peoples," but the more I read about the actual implementation (and how it took us till the 60s to acknowledge American society cannot be trusted to not be overtly racist as gently caress without government intervention to merely claim to not be racist) the more I'm fascinated by this question as a topic for cross-cultural leadership and affecting change on a societal level for minorities. For instance, I cannot help think of the topic without also having a thought about how today, like literally today, the government continues its centuries-old practice of telling Native Americans to gently caress right off and be glad they have the scraps they do. Does dealing/not dealing with that that fall under authentic outreach in some way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Moore's latest film has some ideas. Here's a few that I find pertinent: 1. Abolish slavery again by outlawing prison labor. Giving work to prisoners can make sense as a rehabilitation method but it should then serve to rehabilitate the prisoner, not to make profit for some private company. 2. Once you get rid of modern slavery, you can stop with the pretext used to fill prisons with minorities, so just end the war on drugs already. 3. Unequal access to education is a big source of unequal opportunities which slows down the upward social mobility of minorities. So enforce equal access to education by outlawing tuition and private schools. Once all schools are public and all schools are paid for exclusively by taxpayer money, the wealthy will not have ways to make sure that their kids get to a good schools while poor kids go to bad schools. They'll be forced, for their own kids' sake, to be in favor of appropriate funding for schools and that will benefit everyone. For the greatest equality, this should be done at the federal, not state, level. Also it's not in Moore's film but can you stop loving up with the natives already? poo poo like the Dakota Access pipeline are America's shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Surely you see why giving them a meaningless low quality "vocational" education and denying them a real education is a bad thing. I don't see vocational education as low quality? Trade skills are absolutely vital things and if people have the aptitude for them I would absolutely recommend they try them. You can make an argument for the supposed empowering quality of education but the idea that everybody needs to study an academic subject in order to be worthwhile is absolutely farcical. A lot of people get stupid loving academic qualifications that do no good whatsoever to them or the rest of society, that a subject is academic rather than skilled does not make it better. The point of education should be to empower the learner, and some people are far more empowered by learning skills they're good at than sitting through academic subjects they aren't. If you have a talent for a trade skill you should be encouraged to pursue it because skill and talent together is art, and is deeply praiseworthy when it occurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vocational courses are not a bad thing, the world needs people who actually know how to do useful things more than it does people with qualifications in english lit, not everyone is going to be taken with academic subjects and churning out piles of people with academic qualifications doesn't guarantee them work either, it just means you have a lot of unemployed graduates. there's no shame in the browns accepting their status as an underclass providing semi and unskilled labor, true
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:there's no shame in the browns accepting their status as an underclass providing semi and unskilled labor, true So, if "the browns" do vocational training, you are saying that they would never reach further than "semi-skilled", that there is no possibility of them through training and experience becoming skilled labor or even masters of a trade?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:They don't need to. Black Lives Matter have been doing all the outreach, but it turns out nobody's really listening. Black Lives Matter made it to the president's office. That's pretty good evidence that someone is, in fact, listening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:there's no shame in the browns accepting their status as an underclass providing semi and unskilled labor, true I, uh, am assuming you wouldn't go outright segregation and force black people to go to vocational schools while only having academic schools for white people... Vocational courses are good for everybody. Because regardless of ethnicity, people should be allowed to pursue the things they're good at, and be given as many possible opportunities to figure out what they're good at and where their preference lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
there's not actually enough work in the vocational fields to absorb all the people its boosters want to pursue them; general education is a much better option to encourage by default, and if people want to do vocational stuff they're perfectly free to on their own
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:3. Unequal access to education is a big source of unequal opportunities which slows down the upward social mobility of minorities. So enforce equal access to education by outlawing tuition and private schools. Once all schools are public and all schools are paid for exclusively by taxpayer money, the wealthy will not have ways to make sure that their kids get to a good schools while poor kids go to bad schools. They'll be forced, for their own kids' sake, to be in favor of appropriate funding for schools and that will benefit everyone. For the greatest equality, this should be done at the federal, not state, level. You really need to fix how public schools are funded. Rich districts have much better public schools because they have much better funded public schools. Our public schools actually do well, it's just that the ones funded like Mexico's schools perform well compared to Mexico's schools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:You really need to fix how public schools are funded. Rich districts have much better public schools because they have much better funded public schools. Our public schools actually do well, it's just that the ones funded like Mexico's schools perform well compared to Mexico's schools. fixing school funding wouldn't really help that much, the root cause of urban poverty is that there are no jobs in post-deindustrialization and white flight urban cores. in theory it's possible better schools would cause a positive feedback and start the regeneration of those areas, but much more likely it will just allow a lot more people to flee those areas and find work elsewhere. rust belt cities that aren't gentrifying anytime soon will not be fixed by fixing the schools icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:In my opinion, they should just remove laws that intrinsically make low income neighborhoods undesirable to live in and then let those communities set their own own social and moral standards. They should also stop pandering false promises for votes. Would poor neighborhood really be better off if criminals were essentially given a green light to go nuts without any consequences? This sort of thing seems like it will only make poor neighborhoods shittier and wealthy white neighborhoods better off, since the value seems to be based off of existing civil involvement. Cat Mattress posted:3. Unequal access to education is a big source of unequal opportunities which slows down the upward social mobility of minorities. So enforce equal access to education by outlawing tuition and private schools. Once all schools are public and all schools are paid for exclusively by taxpayer money, the wealthy will not have ways to make sure that their kids get to a good schools while poor kids go to bad schools. They'll be forced, for their own kids' sake, to be in favor of appropriate funding for schools and that will benefit everyone. For the greatest equality, this should be done at the federal, not state, level. If this were even remotely within the realm of legal possibility, i'd start pricing boarding schools overseas. Currently I live in a hyper-liberal college town (so it's not all white, but very few black/hispanic) and the schools are incredible, but i'd go private school in a heartbeat if I knew that people who hate me want to see my children hosed up by all sorts of nonsense policy. xthetenth posted:You really need to fix how public schools are funded. Rich districts have much better public schools because they have much better funded public schools. Our public schools actually do well, it's just that the ones funded like Mexico's schools perform well compared to Mexico's schools. Just look at DC schools, some of the best funded in the world. Parents from all over express desire to send their kids to crime-riddled, underperforming DC schools funded at a cost of 25k/student.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:there's not actually enough work in the vocational fields to absorb all the people its boosters want to pursue them; general education is a much better option to encourage by default, and if people want to do vocational stuff they're perfectly free to on their own Job scarcity is deliberately caused by the state, and there is no guarantee that general education is going to have infinite employment capacity either. Also, you're perfectly free to pursue general education on your own, in theory, if you ignore all the economic reasons why you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Job scarcity is deliberately caused by the state, and there is no guarantee that general education is going to have infinite employment capacity either. expansion of vocational education at public expense necessarily comes at the expense of other potential expansions of public funding for education, so there actually is a tradeoff
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:expansion of vocational education at public expense necessarily comes at the expense of other potential expansions of public funding for education, so there actually is a tradeoff Yes... And both are valuable, so one should not be sidelined in favor of the other, especially not because poncy middle class white people want their kids to grow up to become doctors and lawyers, things we totally have an infinite capacity to employ. The idea that academic skills are the only worthwhile skills is stupid and needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:fixing school funding wouldn't really help that much, the root cause of urban poverty is that there are no jobs in post-deindustrialization and white flight urban cores. in theory it's possible better schools would cause a positive feedback and start the regeneration of those areas, but much more likely it will just allow a lot more people to flee those areas and find work elsewhere. rust belt cities that aren't gentrifying anytime soon will not be fixed by fixing the schools That's all entirely true, but funding people being able to engage in and follow the economy seems a lot better than just letting people stagnate in failed towns. on the left posted:Just look at DC schools, some of the best funded in the world. Parents from all over express desire to send their kids to crime-riddled, underperforming DC schools funded at a cost of 25k/student. Outliers exist, yes. That would be as part of a comprehensive reform that would hopefully fix the issues behind that as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Moore's latest film has some ideas. Here's a few that I find pertinent: But these are radical socialist ideas. There must be some easy, American way to solve racism. What about hiring more black people in Silicon Valley so they can innovate the path to the future?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Mercrom posted:But these are radical socialist ideas. There must be some easy, American way to solve racism. What about hiring more black people in Silicon Valley so they can innovate the path to the future? I think you mean just rely on the invisible hand to do it because clearly the market works perfectly even with imperfect components with common biases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:45
|
|