Straight Dope Message Board

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

How does Antonio Brown "give black people a bad name"? Do you believe that the actions of a single black person always reflect upon all black people? Do you believe similar things about white people? 51

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Criticism of black people are not racist. They are human like everyone else. Just because you are black doesn't mean that you are immune from criticism. That's not racist. Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

Criticizing Antonio Brown might not be racist.

Saying "Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name" is racist.

The idea that an individual's behavior reflects on an entire minority group is racist. 52

[bobot]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

...That's not racist. Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

That's racist. Holy fucking shit. Antonio Brown is capable of giving Antonio Brown a bad name. He isn't giving black people a bad name like he isn't giving people who have two eyes a bad name. 53

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

I would agree with you if the poster had said that the Democrats have their share of leftists and anti-white-male crusaders among their supporters, but the poster said that it's the Party's emphasis, and another poster has said it has been taken over.

So, care to revise your reply?

No. The next time a Doper says something along the lines of 'the Republican Party has been taken over by white nationalists' or 'the Republican Party's emphasis is on supporting fascism' and I respond with "where in the party platform does it say anything about fascism or white nationalism?" are you going to say "ahh, shit, he's got us there; it's not in the platform, therefore it clearly can't be the party's emphasis and it's not possible that the party was taken over by something that's not explicitly spelled out in their platform"? 54

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by enipla

Google Tucker Carlson. I'll just start there.

HD, you may not be a racist. But the party you support sure as shit is. You may want to think about that.

The post you quoted said "can you show me where in the party platform it says ...". AFAIK, Tucker Carlson isn't in the Republican Party platform. 55

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I think there is room in the Democratic Party for anti-abortion voters, gun nuts, and fiscal conservatives.

This is pretty much a strawman argument. There are plenty of Democratic voters, and elected officials for that matter, who support gun ownership and fiscal conservatism. Heck, the Democratic establishment as a whole is far more fiscally conservative than the irresponsible deficit-ballooning mix of tax slashing and military/porkbarrel spending that seems to be all Republicans know how to do these days.

As for anti-abortion voters, AFAICT they make up over ten percent of Democrats, and there are even several anti-abortion Democrats in Congress.

Moreover, even the most ardent pro-abortion-rights Democrat isn't demanding that nobody can believe that abortion is morally wrong, just like we're not saying that nobody is allowed to believe that same-sex marriage is morally wrong. We're just saying that we need to defend the legal right to choose it, for those who don't believe it to be morally wrong.

Do you also consider that there needs to be "room in the Democratic Party" for voters advocating same-sex marriage bans, for instance? 56

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

Exactly which road are you in the middle of? 57

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

No. The next time a Doper says something along the lines of 'the Republican Party has been taken over by white nationalists' or 'the Republican Party's emphasis is on supporting fascism' and I respond with "where in the party platform does it say anything about fascism or white nationalism?" are you going to say "ahh, shit, he's got us there; it's not in the platform, therefore it clearly can't be the party's emphasis and it's not possible that the party was taken over by something that's not explicitly spelled out in their platform"?

Well, somebody put a racist authoritarian in the White House. Wasn't me or any of my fellow Democrats. Not sure how many white supremacists voted for Democrats in recent elections; A lot supported Trump Republicans, I'm told. Very few Democrats were for child separation at borders, denying abortion to women, marriage to gays and bathrooms to trans-gendered. Republicans seem to have managed that on their own without our help or writing it down as official policy.

Now, which egregious anti-white-male policies have been enacted by my fellow Democrats? 58

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

No. The next time a Doper says something along the lines of 'the Republican Party has been taken over by white nationalists' or 'the Republican Party's emphasis is on supporting fascism' and I respond with "where in the party platform does it say anything about fascism or white nationalism?" are you going to say "ahh, shit, he's got us there; it's not in the platform, therefore it clearly can't be the party's emphasis and it's not possible that the party was taken over by something that's not explicitly spelled out in their platform"?

I have no idea why you're white-knighting that poster. Anyway, do you think the Democratic Party's emphasis is anti-white male? Do you think it has been taken over by leftists? Because I don't see the evidence. Anyway, I didn't just ask for a cite from the platform, I also mentioned any prominent Democrat. Did you seen where I wrote "elected Democrats"?

For example, Steve King is a white-supremacist elected Republican, so that could be a cite, if an insufficient one, that Republicans emphasize or have been taken over, etc., by white supremacists -- this is not my position, but it's at least a cite that mentions an elected official on the national stage.

Why did you ignore my part about "elected Democrats" to focus exclusively on the platform? I think that if leftists had taken over the party, there would be evidence in the platform, but that wasn't the only evidence I was willing to accept.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like it will be productive, since you're in no way a moderate, so I'm hoping bump or the Yankees guy decides to respond. 59

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

No. The next time a Doper says something along the lines of 'the Republican Party has been taken over by white nationalists' or 'the Republican Party's emphasis is on supporting fascism' and I respond with "where in the party platform does it say anything about fascism or white nationalism?"

This is also kind of a strawman argument. "Bothsidesist" rhetoric trying to pretend the "far left" is equivalent to the "far right" tends to ignore the fact that the locus of the radicalism is very different in the two cases.

Leftwing "radicalism" arguing for, say, completely open borders and outlawing fossil fuel companies is manifested in a fringe of nobodies tweeting on the internet. Real radicalism in the form of proposals for, say, disenfranchising white men is an even more negligible fringe.

Rightwing radicalism arguing for white nationalism, banning Muslims, closing the Mexican border, etc., is manifested in major conservative media such as Fox News and in the White House. And Republicans who support Trump are implicitly endorsing this radicalism.

No, neither party platform officially endorses any really radical ideas. But those who say that the Republican Party has been "taken over" by extremism are making a much more realistic statement, in terms of actual influence and power, than those who say the same thing about the Democratic Party. 60

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Well, somebody put a racist authoritarian in the White House. Wasn't me or any of my fellow Democrats. ...

You might want to reconsider making such sweeping claims. According to exit polls, President Trump got votes from something like 8% of dems. He would not have won without those dem votes. 61

[elucidator]

So, you're cool with the "authoritarian racist" part, but want to quibble about "no Democrats"? 62

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

I have no idea why you're white-knighting that poster. ...

I don't even know which poster you think I'm "white-knighting" for. My point was that "it's not in the platform" is a poor defense.

Originally Posted by RitterSport

... Anyway, do you think the Democratic Party's emphasis is anti-white male? ...

I don't think it's a universal attitude among Democrats, but there's definitely a noticeable streak of it.

Originally Posted by RitterSport

... Do you think it has been taken over by leftists? ...

Yes.

Originally Posted by RitterSport

... Anyway, I didn't just ask for a cite from the platform, I also mentioned any prominent Democrat. Did you seen where I wrote "elected Democrats"? ...

...

Why did you ignore my part about "elected Democrats" to focus exclusively on the platform? ...

I was quoting from and responding to your earlier post (#11) that didn't mention "elected Democrats". I missed your later post (#31, a few minutes before mine) that did say this, and didn't notice it until I read this and went back to find where you had said that. 63

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by elucidator

So, you're cool with the "authoritarian racist" part, but want to quibble about "no Democrats"?

I disagree, but that's an opinion, and he's free to hold it. "Wasn't me or any of my fellow Democrats" is a claim of a factual nature, and factually wrong. 64

[snfaulkner]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

...

I don't think it's a universal attitude among Democrats, but there's definitely a noticeable streak of it.

...

Show me where you are noticing this... 65

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Criticism of black people are not racist. They are human like everyone else. Just because you are black doesn't mean that you are immune from criticism. That's not racist. Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Criticizing Antonio Brown might not be racist.

Saying "Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name" is racist.

The idea that an individual's behavior reflects on an entire minority group is racist.

The idea that “[insert ethnicity here] people” can collectively have a “bad name” is pretty problematic all by itself. 66

[kaylasdad99]

double post 67

[kaylasdad99]

You’re proud . . . of being - - proud?

Huh.

Ummm, okay, I guess. 68

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I disagree, but that's an opinion, and he's free to hold it. "Wasn't me or any of my fellow Democrats" is a claim of a factual nature, and factually wrong.

I stand corrected. I should have said, "fellow liberals". That's more accurate because I have never registered to be officially affiliated with any political party so in the strictest sense, I have no "fellow Democrats". 69

[bump]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Universal health care; cheaper prescription drugs; better environment; higher minimum wage for your kids when they get jobs; better labor rights and protections; free or lower-cost college for your kids (depending on which candidate); more robust social safety net if things go wrong for you; and a lot more. There are tons of things in the Democratic party platform that are meant to help pretty much everyone aside from the very rich (and even some things, like environmental policies, that are meant to benefit everyone, including the very rich).

Sure, but a lot of that stuff isn't quite so.... pressing if you're not at the edges. I mean, universal health care is a good thing, and so is higher minimum wages, but honestly, they're not high on my list. I mean, I have good health insurance and make more than several multiples of the minimum wage. Lower cost/free college is good, but it seems to be a distant priority behind all the other stuff like UHC, playing Robin Hood, focusing on gun control and other stuff that doesn't much affect me.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not voting Republican, and haven't for several elections now. But it's much more a situation of the GOP going off the rails and becoming ignorant, hateful and just flat-out stupid, than it's some sort of situation where the Democratic party's platform or candidates really entice me. If anything, the more insane ones like Sanders or Warren repel me more than anything else. But they repel me far less than Trump, or morons like Matt Goetz, Louie Gohmert, or to use a more local example, Briscoe Cain.

I really don't like the idea that I should have to both choose sides, and go all-in on one party or the other's agenda. Just because I'm voting Democrat doesn't mean that I think they're wonderful- far from it. It's that the GOP has gotten so godawful lately that I can't vote for them in good conscience or as a rationally thinking person. 70

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by bump

Sure, but a lot of that stuff isn't quite so.... pressing if you're not at the edges. I mean, universal health care is a good thing, and so is higher minimum wages, but honestly, they're not high on my list. I mean, I have good health insurance and make more than several multiples of the minimum wage. Lower cost/free college is good, but it seems to be a distant priority behind all the other stuff like UHC, playing Robin Hood, focusing on gun control and other stuff that doesn't much affect me.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not voting Republican, and haven't for several elections now. But it's much more a situation of the GOP going off the rails and becoming ignorant, hateful and just flat-out stupid, than it's some sort of situation where the Democratic party's platform or candidates really entice me. If anything, the more insane ones like Sanders or Warren repel me more than anything else. But they repel me far less than Trump, or morons like Matt Goetz, Louie Gohmert, or to use a more local example, Briscoe Cain.

I really don't like the idea that I should have to both choose sides, and go all-in on one party or the other's agenda. Just because I'm voting Democrat doesn't mean that I think they're wonderful- far from it. It's that the GOP has gotten so godawful lately that I can't vote for them in good conscience or as a rationally thinking person.

That's good, and I don't really think the Democratic party is any better than a C- party at this time. Maybe they/we have flirted with C+/B- at certain times in the last few decades. So I have no problem with you not having particularly warm feelings for the Democratic party.

But the Republicans are a deep, deep F party -- so bad, and so dangerous, that it's imperative that all decent and rational folks vote Dem until the Republican party has either changed beyond recognition or been electorally dismantled. An actual conservative party would be fine -- a pro-corruption, pro-bigotry, pro-misogyny party, as the GOP is in its current form (based on the words of its leadership), is totally unacceptable. 71

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by bump

Sure, but a lot of that stuff isn't quite so.... pressing if you're not at the edges. I mean, universal health care is a good thing, and so is higher minimum wages, but honestly, they're not high on my list.

"I am a healthy privileged fortunate member of the top 1% of global wealth in an era of widespread severe social, economic and environmental crisis, and I demand to know why my preferred political party isn't prioritizing policies to directly increase my already enviable advantages!"

Originally Posted by bump

Don't get me wrong- I'm not voting Republican, and haven't for several elections now. But it's much more a situation of the GOP going off the rails and becoming ignorant, hateful and just flat-out stupid, than it's some sort of situation where the Democratic party's platform or candidates really entice me.

Well, it is definitely easier for the Democrats to court indifferent voters when the Republicans are making themselves so actively repellent.

Originally Posted by bump

Just because I'm voting Democrat doesn't mean that I think they're wonderful- far from it.

Don't worry, nobody is likely to imagine that you or any other Democratic voter actually thinks the Democrats are wonderful, an opinion which I'm not sure has ever been held by any voter in the history of the modern Democratic Party. 72

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

You’re proud . . . of being - - proud?

Huh.

Ummm, okay, I guess.

He works for the Department of Redundancy Department 73

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by snfaulkner

Show me where you are noticing this...

Senator Hirono famously said:

Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country, and I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change ...

Representative Ilhan Omar said:

"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country ... And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men"

that's a couple of examples, using the "elected Democrats" standard. 74

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I stand corrected. I should have said, "fellow liberals". That's more accurate because I have never registered to be officially affiliated with any political party so in the strictest sense, I have no "fellow Democrats".

Well, the same exit poll shows 10% of self-identified liberals voted for President Trump, so you're not really any better off with your change. 75

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Well, the same exit poll shows 10% of self-identified liberals voted for President Trump, so you're not really any better off with your change.

So 8% of Trump voters identified themselves as Democrats and 10% as liberals?

That does it. They can no longer call themselves true Scotsmen. 76

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Well, the same exit poll shows 10% of self-identified liberals voted for President Trump, so you're not really any better off with your change.

IIRC those can be counted in 2 camps: 1) As falling for the early idea that Trump is such a liar that he must had been lying during the campaign so as to be elected and once in power he would show how liberal he was*. 2) Lets watch the Republicans go down with the ship with Trump as captain.










* Some conservatives did fall for this, like the ones that reportedly expected that taking away their health care or deporting their loved ones was a lie too. 77

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

So 8% of Trump voters identified themselves as Democrats and 10% as liberals?

That does it. They can no longer call themselves true Scotsmen.

I think you've got it backwards. CNN had pollsters standing outside of polling locations, polling people as they exited. 36% of the voters said they were Democrats, and of those 36%, 89% said they voted for Clinton, and 8% for President Trump. Likewise, on a separate question they asked about ideology, 26% of voters said they were liberals, and out of those liberal voters, 84% said they voted for Clinton and 10% for President Trump. 78

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

How does Antonio Brown "give black people a bad name"? Do you believe that the actions of a single black person always reflect upon all black people? Do you believe similar things about white people?

Yes.

I believe that Trump gives white people a bad name. Steve Bannon gives white people a bad name. 79

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Yes.



I believe that Trump gives white people a bad name. Steve Bannon gives white people a bad name.

Seems pretty silly to extrapolate the actions of a single person to reflect on hundreds of millions based only on a superficial characteristic. 80

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Yes.

I believe that Trump gives white people a bad name. Steve Bannon gives white people a bad name.

How exactly does that work? Does Trump also give people whose names start with D a bad name? Does he give a bad name to people currently living in DC, or to people who golf, or to people who use Twitter, or to people whose ancestors changed their surnames on immigrating to the United States?

That entire "gives X group a bad name" is a foolish construct, doubly so when the X group isn't chosen by any member of the group.

And when that construct is used in a way that strengthens racist dynamics (e.g., in conjunction with the stereotype that black men are violent criminals), it's racist. 81

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Exactly which road are you in the middle of?

Immigration reform.

America cannot have open borders, but a pathway to citizenship. Teach them to be Americans, have the values of Americans. 82

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I think you've got it backwards. CNN had pollsters standing outside of polling locations, polling people as they exited. 36% of the voters said they were Democrats, and of those 36%, 89% said they voted for Clinton, and 8% for President Trump. Likewise, on a separate question they asked about ideology, 26% of voters said they were liberals, and out of those liberal voters, 84% said they voted for Clinton and 10% for President Trump.

In the same poll, 33% identified as Republicans and 8% of those voted for Clinton. Similarly, 35% identified as conservative and 16% of those voted for Clinton.

Shall we negotiate a hostage exchange? 83

[bump]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

"I am a healthy privileged fortunate member of the top 1% of global wealth in an era of widespread severe social, economic and environmental crisis, and I demand to know why my preferred political party isn't prioritizing policies to directly increase my already enviable advantages!"

It's not so much that they're not doing for me, but rather that they're not doing for me, and they're advocating policies that while ostensibly for me, are probably going to cost me a lot more, without a lot in the way of advantages versus the status quo.

Again, the argument comes back to essentially trying to guilt me into "doing the right thing" or appealing to some sort of latent guilt for the sins of my fathers, if there's not much in it for me. That's not a very winning strategy for getting votes in the absence of a political tumor like Trump to work against. 84

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

How exactly does that work? Does Trump also give people whose names start with D a bad name? Does he give a bad name to people currently living in DC, or to people who golf, or to people who use Twitter, or to people whose ancestors changed their surnames on immigrating to the United States?

That entire "gives X group a bad name" is a foolish construct, doubly so when the X group isn't chosen by any member of the group.

And when that construct is used in a way that strengthens racist dynamics (e.g., in conjunction with the stereotype that black men are violent criminals), it's racist.

Brown is seen as a typical black millennial athlete that is too entitled. That is what I am trying to say.


Let's get back to the topic at hand:

I am a proud middle of the roader. 85

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

In the same poll, 33% identified as Republicans and 8% of those voted for Clinton. Similarly, 35% identified as conservative and 16% of those voted for Clinton.

Shall we negotiate a hostage exchange?

LOL, perhaps. 86

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Immigration reform.

America cannot have open borders, but a pathway to citizenship. Teach them to be Americans, have the values of Americans.

Yep, that's still a Democratic position. 87

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

... Let's get back to the topic at hand:

I am a proud middle of the roader.

Here are some politicians that are "middle of the road" / "centrist" IMHO:

Joe Manchin
Susan Collins
Kyrsten Sinema
Mitt Romney
Tulsi Gabbard
Lisa Murkowski

People don't really like them all that much. 88

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by enalzi

Yep, that's still a Democratic position.

Some Democrats want open borders such as AOC and Omar, and that is why I feel both parties have immigration all wrong. 89

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by enalzi

Yep, that's still a Democratic position.

Some Democrats want open borders such as AOC and Omar, and that is why I feel both parties have immigration all wrong. 90

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Some Democrats want open borders such as AOC and Omar, and that is why I feel both parties have immigration all wrong.

Neither party is a completely homogeneous unit. If they were we wouldn't need congress. Just pick someone to represent each side and give them power based on total votes. Not agreeing with a few people out of a group of hundreds does not make you a centrist. 91

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Brown is seen as a typical black millennial athlete that is too entitled. That is what I am trying to say.


Let's get back to the topic at hand:

I am a proud middle of the roader.

You've not offered evidence to support that claim. And if you're going to keep defending your racist assertion about Brown, expect it to continue being criticized: there's nothing about Brown's actions that reflect poorly on others with his racial identity, and by asserting otherwise, you're perpetuating a harmful racist stereotype.

The best thing for you to do would be to stop defending that assertion, because by no longer defending it, you'd no longer be helping to perpetuate it. 92

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Here are some politicians that are "middle of the road" / "centrist" IMHO:

Joe Manchin
Susan Collins
Kyrsten Sinema
Mitt Romney
Tulsi Gabbard
Lisa Murkowski

People don't really like them all that much.

Because they don't toe the party line.

I don't. I like them.

I despise the parties. 93

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

You've not offered evidence to support that claim. And if you're going to keep defending your racist assertion about Brown, expect it to continue being criticized: there's nothing about Brown's actions that reflect poorly on others with his racial identity, and by asserting otherwise, you're perpetuating a harmful racist stereotype.

The best thing for you to do would be to stop defending that assertion, because by no longer defending it, you'd no longer be helping to perpetuate it.

Just like how one white cop shouldn't reflect all white people. Can't have it both ways.

I was a Brown fan, not anymore. He should have stood up for himself and confronted the Patriots. He took the bait.


I am a middle of the roader because I have different views on certain issues, like most Americans. 94

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

I am a middle of the roader because I have different views on certain issues, like most Americans.

"Centrist" doesn't mean you think for yourself. So far, all the views you have posted have ranged from far left to center left. That's not "middle of the road."

Why is so important to you to label yourself as "middle of the road?" 95

[Yankees 1996 Champs]

Originally Posted by enalzi

"Centrist" doesn't mean you think for yourself. So far, all the views you have posted have ranged from far left to center left. That's not "middle of the road."

Why is so important to you to label yourself as "middle of the road?"

I am tired of the purity police. The far left and the far right. 96

[Acsenray]

"I hate the purity police" says nothing about what you believe or what your values are or anything about whether left or right or anything else is worth supporting. It also says nothing about what it means to be a centrist or middle of the road. "I'm tired of the parties" is a meaningless, empty statement so far as it concerns conveying what you believe and what you support.

We have a two-party system, not because some villain in the background is making it happen. We have a two-party system because that is the natural result of the constitutional structure of our government. It's inevitable. We are going to have two major parties no matter how much you hate it.

So, what a grown up does is take a look at the parties, figure out which one will get you closer to your desired ends and support it. If it's less than perfect, then you enter the political arena like everyone else can do and try to change it, by, say, contributing money or voting for local candidates or committees and trying to group together with other people to effect change.

By the way, that list of people you set forth as mavericks or whatever? Romney and Collins, Manchin, etc. There's nothing independent or special about them. They're working within the system.

And the idea that someone is somehow a better politician because E goes against es party on a handful of issues is empty and insubstantial. What matters is specifically what stances E takes and why. There's no value in just being contrary. 97

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

I'm wondering how anyone who comes across as racist as the OP can consider themself a centrist?

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

Not from the OP but from other posts.

Keep the personalization to the Pit.

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

Antonio Brown gives black people a bad name and it is the truth.

Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs

I believe that Trump gives white people a bad name. Steve Bannon gives white people a bad name.

This is textbook racism. Knock it off.

[/moderating] 98

[HMS Irruncible]

OK, so it looks like I nailed it (although anybody with 2 functioning brain cells could have predicted it). Like most outspoken centrists, OP likes leftist economic policy but wants to say racist things without being called out on it.

Keep on voting Trump and blaming it on someone else, buddy. We don't need you.
You have plenty of people to keep you company (though it's not especially good company). 99

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Senator Hirono famously said:

Quote:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country, and I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change ...

Representative Ilhan Omar said:

Quote:
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country ... And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men"
that's a couple of examples, using the "elected Democrats" standard.

So, bump and Yankee, is this what you had in mind when you said that you feel put-upon by Democrats? Senator Hirono was talking about the problem of sexual assault -- obviously that's going to fall mostly on men (although not only white men, of course). Rep. Omar was talking about the well-known internal threat of white supremacist and white nationalists, possibly the greatest terror threat we face right now (cite, cite) and certainly the greatest internal threat. I'm not sure why he left the context out of those quotes. Anyway, is this what you mean when you say that the Democratic Party has it in for white men? Because I don't see it, and I think you're falling for right-wing propaganda. 100