What price is it worth to sell out everyone but Whites in order to pander to that 38%? You are arguing that we need to be a country where both parties only worry about white people. That seems pretty problematic. If that isn’t what you are recommending, then I don’t really know what you are recommending.
Stay away from “wypipo suck” political messaging. Don’t advocate unpopular stances like free health care for illegal immigrants. Don’t push for racial quotas in education or hiring. Stuff like that. Obviously you still stand up for equal protection under the law. And you certainly call Trump out for his racist tweets.
Which presidential candidates are running on the “wypipo suck” platform? I haven’t seen that.
AFAIK, no one is advocating “free health care for illegal immigrants”.:dubious: What you may hear is Medicare for all (which isnt free, btw) and not checking peoples "papers’ before you treat them. Because, well, they are *people. *
Or would you like to be bleeding out in the ER and they say, “Well, before we can treat you, can you prove you are a US Citizen?”:dubious:
I can just see it now, in every hospital a man in a black leather trenchcoat and a armband “Papers, please”.
It’s also better for society to treat people rather than let them run around spreading infectious disease.
Trump’s race baiting with prominent Black people on twitter is gladiatorial politics, but it’s not really going to help or hurt him politically. I’d argue it might even slightly hurt him in the short-run in that it makes him look like he’s being a prick just for the sake of being a prick. It won’t hurt him, though, because people who love it are going to love it, people who hate him for it will continue to do so, and the 5-10% of white voters in the middle will eventually move on once he stops tweeting and just chalk it up to Trump being Trump.
But if there’s one issue where progressives and the Democratic party may fall into a trap it is in dealing with undocumented immigrants. There’s no question that the detainment camps are atrocious and must end – all Democrats and even many independents probably agree with that. But fair or not, helpful or not, taking the position that we should: offer free healthcare to undocumented immigrants; allow them to remain in the country to pursue higher ed; support the idea of sanctuary cities; and dismantle border patrol and ICE - these are risky ideas that are outside the mainstream. To be sure, we need to have more human policies toward how we treat undocumented immigrants but openly embracing some of the things that Julian Castro advocated in the last debate (and others nodded their heads in agreement with) is a recipe for disaster with white independents in Rust Belt states.
From the notorious right wing rag the L.A. Times:
And Airbeck, you are missing the point. This isn’t about a sober technocratic assessment of efficiency in public health policy. It’s about political optics.
It’s about scare mongering and hate. I guess that’s just who we are as a country now. Who can pander most to fear and hate. It would be nice of one of our parties didn’t do that.
A CNN poll earlier this month finds that providing health care for undocumented immigrants is opposed by 59% and supported by 38%. That is a political LOS-AH!
At one point in our history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn’t make it the right thing to do.
I think what matters is how Democrats talk about it. I don’t think reasonable people would object to saying “We need to enforce our borders, but we’re going to treat people while they’re here, just like we would tourists, or homeless people, or anyone in need of care.” But trying to race to the left with ideas such as decriminalizing illegal crossings is risky. Again, how a president enforces illegal crossings once they actually get the office is one thing, but they have to get the office first and I don’t think they do that by embracing the ideas of someone like Castro.
Well, no. The Northern states were anti-slavery from the signing of the Constitution, and earlier. And more people, unless you counted the “3/5ths”.
At the start of the Civil war the North had more than TWICE the population of the South.
Of course a few northerners were pro-slavery and a few southerners anti. And of course many were not strongly inclined either way.
The South did try, very hard, to make sure that the humber of pro and anti STATES were equal.
Well, that’s fine as AFAIK, no one supports that. What they support is healthcare for all people, which indeed: Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if
this would require higher taxes? about 60% of American want.
What is proposed is that they don’t check for citizenship status before giving health care. Which of course is the right thing to do. Do you carry your passport and birth cert everywhere you go? “Papers please!” “But I am having a heart attack!” “Nothing for you unless you can prove you are American!”.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care
*Seventy percent said they supported providing “Medicare for all,” *
At one point in history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn’t make it the right thing to do.
Man, just two posts up I refuted that.
*Well, no. The Northern states were anti-slavery from the signing of the Constitution, and earlier. And more people, unless you counted the “3/5ths”.
At the start of the Civil war the North had more than TWICE the population of the South.
Of course a few northerners were pro-slavery and a few southerners anti. And of course many were not strongly inclined either way.
The South did try, very hard, to make sure that the humber of pro and anti STATES were equal.*
Not very persuasively though, unless you’re equating the claim “at one point in history slavery was supported by the majority” with the claim “at one point in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US states advocated legal slavery”.
No, at all points in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US citizens were anti-slavery.
Pretty much at no time in the History of America as a nation (as we know it) was “slavery was supported by the majority”.
We couldn’t know this for sure (no accurate polling through most of that period), but I doubt it. At the very least, the majority of American citizens (at the time – meaning white Americans) tolerated slavery. If they didn’t, they would have ended it much earlier.
If his version of it can’t be known for sure, then neither can yours.
By the time of the signing of the Constitution, all Northern states had or were passing* laws banning slavery. Yes, some allowed for a gradual process, but the North was solidly antislavery by 1887. And the North held like 2/3 of the population.
But Ok, “At one point in history slavery was supported by the majority too”-** cite?** Can someone show we that at any time after 1787 a majority of Americans* supported *slavery?
- NewYork was deadlocked due to the point of whether or not free slaves shoudl be allowed to vote. But there was near unanimous support to ban the practice, but just (as pointed out in 1776 "*John Hancock:
Mr. Morris, [pause, then shouts] WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?
Lewis Morris:
I’m sorry Mr. President, but the simple fact is that our legislature has never sent us explicit instructions on anything!
John Hancock:
NEVER? [slams fly swatter onto his desk] That’s impossible!
Lewis Morris:
Mr. President, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?
[Hancock shakes his head “No”]
Lewis Morris:
They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done. [turns to the Congress as he returns to his seat] I beg the Congress’s pardon.
John Hancock:
[grimly] My sympathies, Mr. Morris."*