19
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 03:51 am
@Region Philbis,
I get the feeling that people don't even know what they're voting for. I've heard so many Trump voters – and not necessarily MAGA – who say they 're voting for him because he's a businessman. ???
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 04:39 am
Quote:
Israel is a rogue nation. It should be removed from the United Nations
Mehdi Hasan
Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo

One rogue nation cannot declare war on the UN itself and continue to get away with it

Over the past year, Israel has launched attacks on multiple countries and occupied territories: the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran.

Yet countries and territories aside, Israel has also targeted one specific organization with a series of unprecedented rhetorical and violent attacks.

Yes, the United Nations. We have all witnessed Israel, effectively, declare war on the UN.

Consider the record of recent weeks and months:

Israel’s prime minister, while standing on stage at the UN general assembly, denounced the body as “contemptible”, a “house of darkness” and a “swamp of antisemitic bile”.

Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the UN shredded a copy of the UN charter with a miniature paper shredder while also standing at the podium of the general assembly, and later said the UN headquarters in New York “should be closed and wiped off the face of the Earth”.

Israel’s foreign minister falsely accused the UN secretary general of not having condemned Iran’s attacks on Israel, declared him “persona non grata in Israel” and announced that he had “banned him from entering the country”.

The Israeli government actively obstructed a UN-mandated commission of inquiry trying to collect evidence on the 7 October attacks.

Israel’s parliament is in the process of designating a longstanding UN agency, Unrwa, as a “terrorist organization”.

The Israeli military has bombed UN schools, warehouses and refugee camps in Gaza for 12 consecutive months, and killed a record 228 UN employees in the process. “By far the highest number of our personnel killed in a single conflict or natural disaster since the creation of the United Nations,” to quote the UN secretary general.

The Israeli military is now also attacking UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon. According to the UN, “five UN ‘Blue Helmets’ serving with UNIFIL in Lebanon have been injured as Israeli forces inflicted damage on UN positions close to the ‘Blue Line’.”

How is any of this OK? Acceptable? Legal?

Perhaps the biggest question of all: how is Israel still allowed to remain a member of the UN? Why has it not yet been expelled from an organization that it is relentlessly and shamelessly attacking and undermining? Sure, there are other human rights abusers that remain card-carrying members of the UN – Syria, Russia and North Korea, to name but a few – but none of them have killed UN employees en masse; none of them have sent tanks to invade a UN base; none of them have “refused to comply with more than two dozen UNSC resolutions”. It has been more than 60 years since any country in the world dared make the UN secretary general himself “persona non grata”.

To be clear: it’s not as if there isn’t a mechanism for expelling a UN member state. Article 6 of the UN charter says:

“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Now some might point out that no member state has ever been expelled from the UN under Article 6. Plus, the United States, which has vetoed over 50 UN security council resolutions critical of Israel since the early 1970s, would never allow such a “recommendation of the Security Council” to be made.

It’s a valid objection. History, however, teaches us that there are workarounds to security council vetoes. As the international law professor and former US state department adviser Thomas Grant pointed out in October 2022, while making his own case for expelling Russia from the United Nations in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, “UN members on two occasions in the past have judged a particular Member delegation no longer fit to sit at the organization’s table. On both occasions, the UN improvised a solution.”

In 1971, socialist and non-aligned nations in the Global South voted in the UN general assembly to recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and thereby replaced the representatives from the Republic of China (Taiwan), which had been a founding member of the UN. ROC was out, PRC was in – and it was the general assembly, not the security council, that decided it.

Three years later, relying again not on the UN charter but its own “rules of procedure” as the human rights lawyer and former UN official Saul Takahisi has noted, the UN general assembly “voted to refuse to recognize the credentials of the South African delegation” and “barred South Africa from participation in the Unga” until 1994.

Oh, and the two main reasons cited by the UN general assembly for suspending South Africa’s membership? Its practice of apartheid against the indigenous Black population and its illegal occupation of neighboring Namibia. Sound familiar?

Crucially, as Thomas Grant has written, “the move against South Africa followed no precise procedural pathway in the UN charter or existing UN practice” and the UN showed how “an improvisatory ethos prevails, when the member states judge a matter important enough that they must act.”

So what is more “important” for the UN member states right now than attacks on the UN itself by a single member state? On the UN’s authority, personnel, headquarters and charter? On Saturday, 40 countries issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s brazen and ongoing assault on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon but talk is cheap. UN member states need to act.

The Israeli government may want to pretend that the United Nations, and the general assembly in particular, is irrelevant, impotent and filled with antisemitic bias, yet Israel only exists today because of a UN general assembly resolution. The country’s own 1948 Declaration of Independence makes seven different references to the United Nations, all of them super-positive and ever-so-grateful.

So evicting Israel from the UN, or at least suspending its participation in the general assembly as a first step, would send a powerful message – both to the people of Israel and to the rest of the world.

That the authority of the United Nations still matters. That the lives of UN staff and peacekeepers also matter. And that one rogue nation cannot declare war on the UN itself and continue to get away with it.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/15/israel-united-nations
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 06:09 am
@Bogulum,
Bogulum wrote:


You want to keep talking about analyzing why non-white people are voting for Trump. Do you have any reason to believe that even if there was some sort of final, reasonable solution to that puzzle, the answer would be of some kind of real help? If so, how do you see it as helpful? We'd sleep easier? We'd have the tools then to persuade them out of following a madman? What?

I pointedly asked you your opinion of Hightor's "giving up on white people". Did you knowingly ignore the question, or to your thinking did you actually answer it?



THIS RESPONSE IS TO HIGHTOR AND BERNIE AS WELL AS YOU, SNOOD.

I've been following the discussion between you, Bernie and Hightor. My comment to you all is:

I cannot truly understand why ANYONE, white or non-white; male or female, is still willing to support the candidacy of Trump...FOR ANY REASON. So I have come to the conclusion that it is not legitimately the result of reasoned consideration, but rather a function of disregard for "careful of what you wish for."

I think the non-whites (male or female) who are in the Trump camp cannot really be there because of ANY economic or social considerations. They are there because they carelessly think Trump and his ilk will "protect" against (what seems to be the inevitable) change in the racial make-up of America. At absolute minimum, America is going to become a non-white majority nation...or so close to a non-white majority nation as to functionally be one. That generates terror in some whites...enough, in fact, so that there is what can easily be perceived as a majority of whites who will do the unthinkable to keep non-whites as powerless as possible.

Not sure why anyone thinks there is not a significant white stand against this (why whites are not questioning voting indications as much for whites as are questioning non-whites for it), but I read and hear LOTS of white commentators who question IN GENERAL why ANYONE would do something as absurd, destructive, and non-thinking as voting for Trump.

That being said, I acknowledge that many of us white males are hoping non-whites and women will save us from ourselves. And that may be the reason for the concern you are expressing.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 06:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
Thanks, Frank.

I get the feeling that my admission of "concern" has been interpreted by Snood as some sort of paternalistic attitude concerning these hypothetical non-white Trump supporters, an extension of the "white man's burden" mythology. It's not. People who are old enough to vote can do so without any hand-holding and direction by me, and mature enough to face the consequences of their choices. I am concerned with the fate of the country where I live and the planet on which we all reside.

Nate Cohn's analysis concluded with this chilling projection:

Quote:
But whatever happens this November, today’s young Black and Hispanic voters will be the regular Black and Hispanic voters of the future. Even if Mr. Trump’s support is not fully realized in the final results this November, it may only be a matter of time before Republicans break through.


Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 07:28 am
A group promoting ‘dangerous’ scientific racism ideology teamed up with rightwing extremist, recordings reveal.

Secretly recorded videos show how an international group of fanatics wants to popularise pseudo-scientific racial theories.

The man who says he wants to become the next leader is sitting over a plate of fish soup in a fine restaurant in Athens on an autumn evening. ‘My vision is to run for election in Germany one day - Trump-style,’ Erik Ahrens, the far-right activist and AfD-affiliated social media expert, tells his two conversation partners. Similar to former US President Donald Trump, he wants to ‘lead a populist movement centred around one person’. This has not happened in Germany ‘for 100 years’.

To realise his plan, he needs money, Ahrens continues. An international network is needed that ‘generates income’ and ideally has several pillars. Ahrens compares it to a spider: if one leg falls off, there are still plenty of others.

Ahrens repeatedly interrupts his monologue. Apparently, the waiters walking past the table are not supposed to hear his plans. Only his two companions are supposed to hear them, his British colleague Matthew Frost and the second man, a potential investor for his project.

What Ahrens doesn't know is that the dinner is being filmed. A camera in the potential investor's shirt button has been recording everything for almost three hours.

The guest, who claims to be a wealthy heir with far-right views, is actually an activist from the British non-governmental organisation ‘Hope Not Hate’.
The group recorded a whole series of secret meetings and video calls of the network, to which the German right-wing extremist Ahrens belongs. The material initially went to the ‘Guardian’, German SPIEGEL and the Austrian ‘Standard’ took part in the research led by the London newspaper, and they also have the material.

The financial backer is US multimillionaire Andrew Conru from Seattle, who once became rich with dating sites such as ‘Adult Friend Finder’. According to the videos, he is said to have invested around 1.3 million dollars in HDF.

Revealed: International ‘race science’ network secretly funded by US tech boss
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 07:35 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


Thanks, Frank.

I get the feeling that my admission of "concern" has been interpreted by Snood as some sort of paternalistic attitude concerning these hypothetical non-white Trump supporters, an extension of the "white man's burden" mythology. It's not. People who are old enough to vote can do so without any hand-holding and direction by me, and mature enough to face the consequences of their choices. I am concerned with the fate of the country where I live and the planet on which we all reside.

Nate Cohn's analysis concluded with this chilling projection:

Quote:
But whatever happens this November, today’s young Black and Hispanic voters will be the regular Black and Hispanic voters of the future. Even if Mr. Trump’s support is not fully realized in the final results this November, it may only be a matter of time before Republicans break through.





I am not worried about "Republicans" breaking through. Republicans and Democrats both want what is best for our nation. But what passes for "Republican" today is something disgusting...an abomination. If Cohn is correct that there will be a Republican breakthrough, it will only be seriously concerning if it is of the Trump variety...not if of the Lincoln variety!
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 08:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If Cohn is correct that there will be a Republican breakthrough, it will only be seriously concerning if it is of the Trump variety...not if of the Lincoln variety!


That's what Liz Cheney's been talking about. But damn, I don't know how the MAGA boil gets lanced. Imagine Trump suddenly being out of the picture. If Vance inherits the movement, here are two (of many) possibilities. The first is that Vance, being more disciplined and intelligent, keeps the party together and continues to implement Project 2025. The second is that, lacking Trump's charisma and devoid of imagination, Vance fails, the movement fizzles, and a Cheney-type of party takes its place. But how many old-school Republicans are there? I think a significant number of MAGA Republicans would crawl back into the woodwork without the excitement of guns and possibility of violence. The new non-white converts might feel out of place. The evangelicals and Christian nationalists might also jump ship.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 10:14 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


Quote:
If Cohn is correct that there will be a Republican breakthrough, it will only be seriously concerning if it is of the Trump variety...not if of the Lincoln variety!


That's what Liz Cheney's been talking about. But damn, I don't know how the MAGA boil gets lanced. Imagine Trump suddenly being out of the picture. If Vance inherits the movement, here are two (of many) possibilities. The first is that Vance, being more disciplined and intelligent, keeps the party together and continues to implement Project 2025. The second is that, lacking Trump's charisma and devoid of imagination, Vance fails, the movement fizzles, and a Cheney-type of party takes its place. But how many old-school Republicans are there? I think a significant number of MAGA Republicans would crawl back into the woodwork without the excitement of guns and possibility of violence. The new non-white converts might feel out of place. The evangelicals and Christian nationalists might also jump ship.


I suspect the changes of the Republican Party becoming closer to the Lincoln Republican Party, Hightor, are about the same as the chances of a tall, beautiful wall being built across the southern border...and having Mexico pay for it.

Too bad. The old GOP was an essential and useful loyal opposition. It helped curb the occasional excesses of the Democrats.

Something has to come along to take its place.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 03:58 pm
@Lash,
racist much?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2024 05:03 pm
@Bogulum,
Quote:
You want to keep talking about analyzing why non-white people are voting for Trump. Do you have any reason to believe that even if there was some sort of final, reasonable solution to that puzzle, the answer would be of some kind of real help? If so, how do you see it as helpful? We'd sleep easier? We'd have the tools then to persuade them out of following a madman? What?
I'm interested in why anyone votes for Trump. As with gender, skin color is irrelevant. And yes, it seems rather obvious that knowledge - as much as can be gained - stands us all in a better position. It also seems obvious that no total or absolute remedy will be available but that always the case. Yet minds can be changed and cultures can be changed. You might choose apathy but I don't.
Quote:
I pointedly asked you your opinion of Hightor's "giving up on white people". Did you knowingly ignore the question, or to your thinking did you actually answer it?
I didn't bother with it. I think I understand his meaning; there are deep historical tendencies in white culture in America, particularly down south and in the mid-west, that have proved surprisingly resistant to change and improvement. Racism/white supremacist notions are a key element in this and a key element in Trump's agitprop. So working to understand why blacks, of all people, would support Trump seems a valuable undertaking.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 03:02 am
Quote:
Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance.

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump.

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s.

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.”

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights.

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as “we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory.

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution.

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them.

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.”

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.”

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.”

hcr
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 04:50 am
Are Black voters abandoning the Democratic party?
Quote:
OPINION

Polls that show Kamala Harris losing Black support have Democrats in a panic. The reality is more complicated


Are Black voters gravitating towards Donald Trump in meaningful numbers? Recent polls and articles, most notably the New York Times/Siena College poll, have set off alarm bells across the country with their survey results finding the former president garnering historic levels of support among African American voters.

The short answer is no, there is little credible evidence showing a meaningful shift in the levels of support Black voters give to Democrats. The longer answer is that the current chorus of media concern illuminates serious shortcomings in polling methodology, political interpretation of polling data, and the responsible communication of information to the public in an ostensible democracy.
[...]
There are four fundamental problems with relying on this single poll’s findings.

First, the poll’s findings are contradicted by other contemporary polls sponsored by major news organizations. In the CBS News/YouGov poll conducted the week after the Times poll, Harris is backed by 87% of Black voters. NBC’s latest poll, concluded 8 October, pegs Harris’s Black number at 84%. The 8 October ABC News/Ipsos poll has Harris’s Black support at 82%.

Second, there is a glaring methodological anomaly buried in the underlying data that raises serious questions about the cultural competence of those conducting the poll. When I was writing my first book Brown is the New White, I was guided by the data scientist Dr Julie Martinez-Ortega, who helped me grapple with the elemental, but actually quite complicated, question of which people in the population you include in the category of African Americans. The Census Bureau has two designations: “Black Alone” and “Black in Combination”. Martinez-Ortega schooled me to ignore the “in combination” grouping as it would yield a distorted picture of the Black population.

Unfortunately, it appears that the New York Times received no such guidance, and their polling data includes truly astounding findings about the differences between Black Alone and Black In Combination. Among the Black Alone population, Harris receives the support of 80% of that group, but the Times finds that just 60% of the Black In Combination grouping supports Harris. Such a dramatic divergence of results from subsets of what are supposedly the same sector of the population raise profound questions about the entire data set.

Which leads to the third problem: the lack of common sense. Good scientists look at the data they gather and then step back and try to make sense of it all. If a subset of data falls outside of the realm of decades of prior empirical findings, then one has to ask some basic questions.

Is there a dramatic difference in the electoral behavior of African Americans and mixed-race Black people? Given that no Democratic presidential nominee has ever received less than 83% of the Black vote, how likely is it that Harris – a Black woman (and also an Asian woman) – is backed by a smaller share of the Black population than Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and a plethora of more mainstream Democratic presidential nominees? How do you reconcile these findings with the demonstrable and quantifiable Black enthusiasm for Harris in the form of the early Zoom calls that engaged tens of thousands of African Americans in a mere matter of hours; the 10,000 people who turned out to the early rally in heavily-Black Atlanta, Georgia; and the historic fundraising numbers that have recently eclipsed $1bn? Which set of information is the outlier?

Tied to the lack of common sense is the fourth problem: insufficient cultural competence. If someone who had deep and extensive experience with African Americans looked at the polling data, they could quickly spot the glaring anomalies. Black mixed-race people aren’t dramatically more pro-Republican than other African Americans. The enthusiasm and excitement demonstrated in the early Zoom calls flow from enduring a lifetime of disrespect and discrimination, and that excitement of finally having someone who shares your cultural experience in the White House isn’t going to dissipate over a few weeks.

Now, to be sure, there are differences in Black voting behavior along gender lines. The most apt example to Harris’s situation occurred in Georgia when Stacey Abrams, an African American woman, won the Democratic nomination for governor. In both of Abrams’s runs, there was a nine-point difference between her support margins from Black women and Black men (97% from Black women in 2018 and 88% from Black men). And cultural competence and common sense would not find this surprising as sexism is embedded in the fabric of this nation and affects all racial groups.

But even in Abrams’s case the vast, vast majority of African Americans backed the Black woman’s bid, and the pertinent and reliable data suggests that a similar phenomenon is unfolding in the 2024 presidential race. The overwhelming majority of Black Americans voted for Democrats in 2020 and in the 2022 midterms (86% according to the exit polls). That enthusiasm is only amplified for Harris.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 06:18 am
TikTok and Twitter are filled (to my surprise) with testimonials from black voters, saying they’re leaving the Dems, some that they’re just voting for Trump.

It’s super heartening to see the ones who are leaving permanently for the Green Party. We’ll need them to grow the party.

The most prolific common thread is the complaint that the Dems only try to attract them every four years and forget them. They don’t care / have finally figured out identity politics. Elevating black faces who espouse neocon policies doesn’t help black communities.

Some pointed to their better economic reality during the Trump administration compared to real trouble recently.

But, just here to say—the Dems are in BIG trouble with the black community based on what I’ve seen.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 06:38 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:


TikTok and Twitter are filled (to my surprise) with testimonials from black voters, saying they’re leaving the Dems, some that they’re just voting for Trump.

It’s super heartening to see the ones who are leaving permanently for the Green Party. We’ll need them to grow the party.

The most prolific common thread is the complaint that the Dems only try to attract them every four years and forget them. They don’t care / have finally figured out identity politics. Elevating black faces who espouse neocon policies doesn’t help black communities.

Some pointed to their better economic reality during the Trump administration compared to real trouble recently.

But, just here to say—the Dems are in BIG trouble with the black community based on what I’ve seen.


https://y.yarn.co/5e12971e-e577-42b8-aaba-2b56a9a003ea_text.gif
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 09:02 am
@Lash,
No one said that black and Hispanic voters were leaving the Democratic Party in droves. They're looking at a particular demographic – young men – and no one suggested that it was anything like a majority of those young men – the estimates I've seen were around 25% of that selected group. The problem is two-fold. (1.) In a close election, even small numbers of voters can make a difference. (2.) It's not a good thing to be losing supporters to someone like Trump and it suggests the need for better communication with, and outreach to, those communities.

Quote:
Some pointed to their better economic reality during the Trump administration compared to real trouble recently.

A lot of people subscribe to this illusory version of recent history. Trump inherited a decent economy which was chugging along with historically low interest rates. He doesn't deserve credit for the previous administration's success. Then we had a pandemic, which people seem to have forgotten. This upturned the world economy. Necessary government spending and federal outlays for cash relief and worldwide supply disruptions triggered inflation and the Federal Reserve did what it should have done before Covid – it began to raise interest rates. It's hard to manage an economy beset by such problems but it's a testament to underlying economic strength that the rising interest rates didn't result in a widespread recession as had been feared.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 11:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
I have noticed this universal Democrat trait that Frank handily exemplifies here, best depicted by either a toddler scream-crying with hands covering ears or an ostrich with his head safely ensconced in a hole.

Thank you, Frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 11:16 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I have noticed this universal Democrat trait that Frank handily exemplifies here, best depicted by either a toddler scream-crying with hands covering ears or an ostrich with his head safely ensconced in a hole.

Thank you, Frank.


I am not a Democrat, Lash. I am a registered (capital I) Independent.

And I recognize bullshit when I see it.

I saw lots of it in your earlier post. That was the reason for my response.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 11:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
Anyone can make general criticisms: “I saw lots of [bullshit] in your earlier post.”

I call bullshit on you, Head in Sand Man.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 11:54 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Anyone can make general criticisms: “I saw lots of [bullshit] in your earlier post.”

I call bullshit on you, Head in Sand Man.


Call whatever you want, Lash. Call whatever you are capable of calling.

I do not care what you think...and I suspect that a majority of people in this forum realize you are, and always have been, a phony in your posts.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2024 12:08 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

It’s super heartening to see the ones who are leaving permanently for the Green Party. We’ll need them to grow the party.


If Trump gets in there won't be a Green Party.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/17/2024 at 10:20:15