*Raising a hand here, to counter your statement about feeling the same way.*
In California, the heavily red parts of the state still do have Republican representation (which of course is as it should be). In Connecticut and Massachusetts, there are no heavily red parts of the state. Now, you do make a good argument for a parliamentary system where parties get a number of seats that matches their share of the vote, but I know you well enough to know you would never want that.
The speech makes the same point, but you don't really care.
Race/ethnically based redistricting is nothing more that the political equivalent of creating a 'reservation' and anyone that's been to an Indian reservation knows how well that's worked out. Segregation writ large.
The speech was about equality, not your demented "equity."
The speech was about striving for a future where race won't matter. We weren't there yet in 1963 and we're still not there yet now. Pretending we already are there - which is essentially what you're calling for - will simply allow the still-existing problem to fester and get worse. Elie Wiesel said it best: "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented".
Air??
That is untrue. He was constantly doing so.
He absolutely did, by promoting the idea that any bad thing that happened to any black ever was because of white people. His "pastor" said "God damn America" and "white people's greed runs a world in need" and he stayed at that church. He called that statement "transformative." He promoted falsehoods like "hands up, don't shoot." He talked about "typical white people." He regularly promoted racial division.
Your statement is nonsense. That he got attacked by the crazies -- which I do not remember happening -- is no proof of anything. The fact is that he did pretend we hadn't made any progress in regard to race, like it was the 1950s and segregation was still in force.
Sorry, but those statements are not true. Gates forgot his key, came back after dark, and was trying to get into his house through the window. The cops on patrol saw a man trying to access a house through a window. Of course they were going to intervene. Most of the time, that's a burglar. In this case, it was the homeowner, but they had no way of knowing that. Gates was let go as soon as he was able to show that it was his house.
Sorry, but that's not true.
They made their way out of crippling poverty and segregation. Nobody gave Justice Thomas or Dr. Carson or Herman Cain or Thomas Sowell anything. They got there the way everyone else gets there. They didn't need your "help" and that's why they get attacked.
Thomas grew up in abject poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, rural Georgia, not even speaking English.
This is EXACTLY the kind of demeaning, degrading, dehumanizing racist essentialism I'm talking about. Most people know better than that, including Thomas himself, who has spoken about this very idea (which, BTW, is racist as hell.)
So oyu can speak for all blacks and you know what they experience better than they do? Teh idea that all blacks have the same experience is a racist idea.
Quite possible. That doesn't justify either assuming that the rude action must have been racist or projecting her action onto all white people. To do so is racist.
That is a racist statement. Do you mean to tell me that the white people in Appalachia, whom your party hates, are more privileged than, say, the Obamas, or Justice Thomas?
Another falsehood by you. When you assert that there are experiences that all blacks have or that without your party's help, a Supreme Court Justice "would just be sweeping floors somewhere," when you assert that blacks can't get an ID, that they don't know how to access the internet, when you set aside scholarships and positions only for a given group, asserting they they're "oppressed" when MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP say they are not, then you are treating them not as individuals, but simply as a monolithic group, not as individuals.
Wrong. It's part of your side's view, and it means treating people unequally. We're not the ones who came up with "equity."
No it has nothing to do with my sides view unless you want to get it really twisted.
I have no doubt you remember it that way. But you can't find a video of it anywhere, now can you?
He never once said anything like that, though again I'm sure it sounded that way to you.
Out of context.
It's not a falsehood. Ask most any Black man not named Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell.
Examples please, or give it a rest. (Again, what I think is you are simply choosing to remember something this way, when what he really did say was quite different.)
I note without surprise that you haven't got a single example to point to. Again. What you describe here is simply what people like you always say when anyone acknowledges that racism isn't dead yet. (The lefty equivalent is to scream in outrage whenever anyone suggests any progress at all has been made. Obama was neither extreme.)
That wasn't official administration policy, it was simply an opinion expressed by one DOJ member. Besides, no one ever came forward to claim they'd been prevented from voting in that case.
I said Gates forgot his key, you say my statements "are not true," and your next comment is "Gates forgot his key." Hmmm.
No, Martin was not "looking into people's houses". Zimmerman had observed other people doing that, weeks before. He already had a long history of calling the cops on Black men he saw around the apartment complex (which had a high crime rate). Martin was simply walking back to his father's fiancee's apartment. The fundamental question is, all else being equal, would he have ended up dead if he'd been white? We'll never know for certain, but there is reason to believe the answer is yes. Obama simply acknowledged as much and called on Americans to recognize that reality. If that makes you uncomfortable, well, it should.
Which is no excuse to murder him. The 911 dispatcher told him to stay out of it, not to mention (as I already did above) Zimmerman had a long history of calling the cops on any Black man he didn't recognize.
No, there really wasn't. He hadn't done anything to deserve Zimmerman's suspicion, and Zimmerman had no authority to confront him. And once again, you're looking at this in a vacuum, ignoring the context of decades of Black men being regarded as violent criminals in situations like this. That is probably why Martin was standoffish when confronted by a complete stranger who had no right to accost him in the first place.
What you're missing is that King was not saying we should be acting like racism has already been conquered when it hasn't yet. He knew better than anyone, that would only exacerbate the problem.
Again, I suspect you're thinking not of what anyone really said but rather of your interpretation of it. You clearly have a talent for hearing what you want to hear.
Not true. Except for Sowell (who is quite a bit older) they all benefitted from Affirmative Action, whether they wanted to or not. Justice Thomas also benefitted from his rich grandfather; he did not claw his own way out of poverty.
No, that is not why they get attacked. They get attacked because of their right-wing politics and rank hypocrisy, and for being more than a little bit dishonest with themselves about how they got where they are.
Until he set his mother's shack on fire, and was taken in by his grandfather, who sent him to a prestigious private school.
You should read Malcolm X's biography sometime. It was one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read. And I can tell from your comments here that either you haven't read it, or you missed some very important points he makes in the end.
No, I can't speak for any blacks. I simply recognize that racism still exists. You are the one choosing to take the word of a tiny number of Black Americans who you know perfectly well are vastly outnumbered.
Or it simply recognizes the historical reality that slavery and Jim Crow happened, and we haven't finished cleaning up after them yet.
Quite possible. Or maybe she was right and the woman who treated them disrespectfully was in fact a racist. A Black woman is most likely a better judge of that than you or I.
In some ways yes, in others no. Look at it this way: white people in Appalachia (who hate our party, not the other way around) are poor and disadvantaged in any number of ways. Poor Blacks in the inner cities and the rural South have all those disadvantages, plus they have to live with systemic racism.
I don't care who loses or gains vote from getting rid of gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn to.represent the people.baaed.on the area they live so their representatives represent them.
