People of Color Continue to Win Under Republicans!

[Fuzzy1975]

I would never try stifel anyones free speech.

Before you make a statement have a little knowledge of the subject matter.

In 2016 the pubs had a majority in two branches of government ( legislative and executive ) The senate had a slim majority ( less than 60 votes ) which is ( 60 ) what it takes to pass legislation, defeat filibuster or invoke cloture.

4 immigration bills were voted on in the senate and all 4 failed because of the lack of border wall funding in general. The failure is a complex partisan issue but mostly because of wall funding and DACA. Having a majority doesn't necessarily pass bills.

To put it as simple as I can, in 2016-2017 the pub house fucked Trump over. That was before FISA GATE, the discovery of possible illegal surveillance on Trump, the politically biased FBI correspondence discovered by Horowitz, the botching of the Hillary Clinton email investigation ( or lack of ) and Comey leaking classified info to a professor to perpetuate and appoint a special counsel which was predicated on a false pretense.

Winning the house in 2020 while keeping the senate the pubs will not repeat the mistakes of 2016. They learned from dems that voting in lockstep wins. There will be a bad taste in the mouth of pubs because of the sham impeachment process by dems and will rally to pass immigration reform, healthcare, more tax reform aimed at middle class and increases on corporate and stock market transactions ( hedge fund trading and cap gains )

Your bias seems evident because of your fondness towards democratic socialism and NHC, those are left leaning PROGRESSIVE issues in the U.S.

Google is very left leaning, very rare to find a conservative viewpoint, all you get is CNN, VOX, MSNBC, NBC, WAPO, NYT's, HUFF, WIK to name a few.

I don't carry water for Trump, I'm a constitutionalist and believe in a fair application of the law and let the pieces fall where they may.

Nice to see a respectful answer.

I disagree with the Schumer comment, as to him being the one to solely kill it. At best you can blame both him and Trump. At worst it would be Trump alone, and I really don't even think it was Trump himself who on reflection killed it, but some of his advisors who came in late and convinced him to alter his course.

Yes the 4 border security bills failed, but so have others from even earlier years, for various reasons. Still the R's had all three house's for a while, (2016-2018)which brings me back to the point I made at the beginning. Having all three house's does not guaranty things will pass into law ( which you concur with).

When I look at the 60% requirement in the Senate, I see that as a means to ensure laws are made and passed cooperatively, not by a simple party majority. I have said this before on these boards, no one ( not Trump, not anyone) is always 100% right, and/or100% wrong!! So to me, what I see on these forms, ( and you are one of them) is the blinders that you ALL seem to use, to circumvent what I just posted.

Last as a whole Canadians are left of the Democrats, even our right, are still left of that with a few exceptions in the western provinces). That does not imply I have a bias. Yes I am a proponent of single payer health care, but I am not pushing anyone's system. All I am saying is, the US can and should do better.

Thanks for getting back and adding in some background, with out the expletives.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nice to see a respectful answer.

I disagree with the Schumer comment, as to him being the one to solely kill it. At best you can blame both him and Trump. At worst it would be Trump alone, and I really don't even think it was Trump himself who on reflection killed it, but some of his advisors who came in late and convinced him to alter his course.


1. Schumer being the senate minority leader pulled out due to dem caucus pressure, Nancy did not want to give Trump a win, especially on a wall bill. He was also daring Trump to shut the Gov down, Trump fell for it.


Yes the 4 border security bills failed, but so have others from even earlier years, for various reasons. Still the R's had all three house's for a while, (2016-2018)which brings me back to the point I made at the beginning. Having all three house's does not guaranty things will pass into law ( which you concur with).

2. There is only one legislative body ( house and senate= congress ) when a bill goes into conference ( bills from both houses ) it's ratified as a complete bill and sent off to the pres for signing.


When I look at the 60% requirement in the Senate, I see that as a means to ensure laws are made and passed cooperatively, not by a simple party majority. I have said this before on these boards, no one ( not Trump, not anyone) is always 100% right, and/or100% wrong!! So to me, what I see on these forms, ( and you are one of them) is the blinders that you ALL seem to use, to circumvent what I just posted.


3. If both houses have the necessary majorities, then yes, it's a party win, I.E. the A.C.A. Of course the pres is of the same party.

Last as a whole Canadians are left of the Democrats, even our right, are still left of that with a few exceptions in the western provinces). That does not imply I have a bias. Yes I am a proponent of single payer health care, but I am not pushing anyone's system. All I am saying is, the US can and should do better.


4. I never said you're pushing NHC. I've stated many times, It works for some countries and that's fine. Our party politics is so toxic, well, they make decisions based on party and not for the good of the people. Knowing how terrorist work, not to secure our border is outright lunacy, leaving our southern front compromised to stick it to Trump is treasonist. For the left ( AOC, ILHAN OMAR ) fed reps, to call border agents nazis is insulting to me as a citizen.


5. I disagree, the progressive left is sooo far left it would make Canadians look like the tea party.


Thanks for getting back and adding in some background, with out the expletives.

6. Once upon a time we had true liberal democrats, not anymore, the progressive left is destroying our country. 22 trillion in debt and they want to spend more.

 

[DawnONight]

People of Colour, yep with that type of a headline, there is no superiority complex here....chuckles.

I'm honestly confused.

What is your objection to the term "people of color"?

What term do you think I should have used?

I am a person of colour, and so is everyone else on this planet. I have a skin tone, but my skin tone does not define who I am as a human being. The fact that you have to ask me "what is my objection" already defines you to me.

Myself, I prefer to be called by my name, but if it needs to be by a race, or skin colour, you can use Caucasian, I do not prefer the term "white".

American citizens? Human beings, Underemployed/Unemployed people in the work force, no clue, since I am not even sure what point you are trying to make with this thread?

I take you are unaware that, at least in the USA, "person of color" is what the Left insists is the prefered term for those who are not what you would call "Caucasian."

Personally, to me, skin color is irrelevant. Again, it is primarily the Left in the USA that continues to be fixated on dividing people into categories by skin color, primarily to claim special status for "people of color." The point of this thread is to demonstrate that, if you want to look at people that way, then such people have generally prospered under GOP policies.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is such total bullshit. if you knew anything of leftwing politics, in the US from FDR to Humphrey Hawkins full employment act, to Bernie and Warren today, you would know that it not handouts but jobs with a living wage that we of the left want. Whereas the right want slave wage workers and hold the morally insane view that how much money you earn maps on to your worth or value as a person.

If you knew anything about FDR you'd know he was a liberal, not a socialist like Bernie and Warren today who hold the morally insane view that if you have more than someone else you must have wronged them and should be punished for it.

There is a big difference between wanting strong public services and wanting a Soviet style government takeover of the economy.

Slaves don't get wages....the right in the US (the more liberal party) just wants freedom from arbitrary government control/oppression designed to promote equity. From wealth redistribution to arbitrarily limiting how much and what kind of voluntary exchanges people are allowed to engage in.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I take you are unaware that, at least in the USA, "person of color" is what the Left insists is the prefered term for those who are not what you would call "Caucasian."

From my perspective it is Racists who use that term.

But I'll see what the internet says about your claim it is from the "left".

 

[YDB95]

If you knew anything about FDR you'd know he was a liberal, not a socialist

I do know that. I also know that your ideological forefathers routinely called him a socialist and made exactly the baseless accusations against him that you always make against Sanders and Warren.

 

[DawnONight]

From my perspective it is Racists who use that term.

But I'll see what the internet says about your claim it is from the "left".

How's that research going?

Although American activist Martin Luther King Jr. used the term "citizens of color" in 1963, the phrase in its current meaning did not catch on until the late 1970s. In the late 20th century, the term "person of color" was introduced in the United States in order to counter the condescension implied by the terms "non-white" and "minority", and racial justice activists in the U.S., influenced by radical theorists such as Frantz Fanon, popularized it at this time. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation. Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move the understanding of race beyond the black-white dichotomy then prevalent.​

Person of Color, Wikipedia (accessed Nov. 12, 2019) (citations omitted).

Use of the term "person of color", especially in the United States, is often associated with the social justice movement.​

Ibid. (citing Maurianne Adams; Lee Anne Bell; Pat Griffin (1997). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. Psychology Press. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-415-91057-6.)

I'd say you just proved yourself pretty clueless.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I do know that. I also know that your ideological forefathers routinely called him a socialist and made exactly the baseless accusations against him that you always make against Sanders and Warren.

No they didn't, FDR was part of my ideological forefathers. I'm all for strong public services and infrastructure.

And the accusations against Sanders and Warren aren't baseless.

Like many other democratic socialist they openly support nationalizing at least some of the economy and arbitrarily re-distributing wealth....because that's what socialism is.

socialism noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


Neither are nor claim to be liberals, they are well to the left of that along with many other democratic socialist like AOC, M. Waters and others that make up at the very least 1/3 of the DNC.

Nearly all of which openly openly admit themselves that they are not liberals but democratic socialist, why can't you??

 

[BotanyBoy]

Use of the term "person of color", especially in the United States, is often associated with the social justice movement.​

I'd say you just proved yourself pretty clueless.

He wasn't wrong, it is a term used by racist.

Just the left wing ones.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How's that research going?

Although American activist Martin Luther King Jr. used the term "citizens of color" in 1963, the phrase in its current meaning did not catch on until the late 1970s. In the late 20th century, the term "person of color" was introduced in the United States in order to counter the condescension implied by the terms "non-white" and "minority", and racial justice activists in the U.S., influenced by radical theorists such as Frantz Fanon, popularized it at this time. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation. Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move the understanding of race beyond the black-white dichotomy then prevalent.​

Person of Color, Wikipedia (accessed Nov. 12, 2019) (citations omitted).

Use of the term "person of color", especially in the United States, is often associated with the social justice movement.​

Ibid. (citing Maurianne Adams; Lee Anne Bell; Pat Griffin (1997). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. Psychology Press. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-415-91057-6.)

I'd say you just proved yourself pretty clueless.

Actually I have not had time to look yet. Perhaps this afternoon.

So I took a quick run around the internet, checked out your links and see that the history of this rolls back to the days of "other" monikers being used to describe African Americans. It was offered up, has become the term of the day, but still I find numerous references to it still being offensive to many.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-widatalla-poc-intersectionality-race-20190428-story.html

https://www.sapiens.org/column/race/people-of-color/

Above are two, lots more out there though.

Which is the tone I perceive used by the originator of the thread.

Don't like my opinion, that is fine.

I do wonder how we would discriminate if we were blind... I get the idea some people still would.

 

[dan_c00000]

If you knew anything about FDR you'd know he was a liberal, not a socialist

There is a big difference between wanting strong public services and wanting a Soviet style government takeover of the economy.

Bot's about to get owned due to his massive lack of knowledge.

First, FDR prohibited private gold ownership in 1934 with the Gold Reserve Act, in 1942 he froze wages and prices on certain goods and services (Emergency Price Control Act of 1942), this law was then modified again in 1942 (Stabilization Act of 1942), and the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was the first peacetime conscription in US history.

So bot's example of FDR not being a "socialist" when FDR outlawed Private citizens owning gold, froze wages, and began a peacetime draft is fucking hilariously wrong. I couldn't think of anything more socialists unless FDR say passed a law that forced the government to buy up surplus products or created a government agency that forced companies to meet minimum wage, maximum hours, and price control limits.

Oh shit, FDR did both of those things! Jeez bot you sure picked a shitty example of not socialism there. I guess you ought to toss our your racist, Klan approved histories of the US and maybe, I dunno, read a real book.

That was a seriously huge, massive own and I don't think you're ever going to be able to recover. Guess it's back to your dawn alt now for a bit eh?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bot's about to get owned due to his massive lack of knowledge.

First, FDR prohibited private gold ownership in 1934 with the Gold Reserve Act, in 1942 he froze wages and prices on certain goods and services (Emergency Price Control Act of 1942), this law was then modified again in 1942 (Stabilization Act of 1942), and the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was the first peacetime conscription in US history.

So bot's example of FDR not being a "socialist" when FDR outlawed Private citizens owning gold, froze wages, and began a peacetime draft is fucking hilariously wrong. I couldn't think of anything more socialists unless FDR say passed a law that forced the government to buy up surplus products or created a government agency that forced companies to meet minimum wage, maximum hours, and price control limits.

Oh shit, FDR did both of those things! Jeez bot you sure picked a shitty example of not socialism there. I guess you ought to toss our your racist, Klan approved histories of the US and maybe, I dunno, read a real book.

That was a seriously huge, massive own and I don't think you're ever going to be able to recover. Guess it's back to your dawn alt now for a bit eh?

Dan is delusional as ever.

Clearly doesn't understand what socialism is.

He didn't nationalize the economy or redistribute wealth, he fought a war, big difference.

Poor Dan....go back to high school Dan, you need it.

 

[YDB95]

No they didn't, FDR was part of my ideological forefathers. I'm all for strong public services and infrastructure.

Ah yes, I forgot you consider yourself a liberal for some bizarre reason.
But regardless of who you consider your ideological forefathers, it is a fact that FDR's contemporary detractors called him a socialist all the time. As I've said elsewhere, people like you have been applying that term to EVERYONE they don't like for a very, very long time.

 

[seeshelly]

This is one reason Trump is hated

The democratic party has used race to remain in power for years. LBJ knew that his "war on poverty" would actually addict Black Americans to welfare. Playing the race card at every hand and trying to trick "people of color" into thinking that they live in poverty because of Republicans they have been able to count on their vote.

Now that Trump is exposing the real source of poverty and making jobs available for all Americans more and more "people of color" are starting to see that the democratic policies have kept them in economic slavery. As more and more wake up there is a major threat to the power that the Democrats hold over minorities.

That is one of many reasons they fear and hate Trump.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah yes, I forgot you consider yourself a liberal for some bizarre reason.

Why do you think it's bizarre for someone who thinks protecting and enhancing individual liberty should be the primary function of government to consider themselves a liberal??

What do you think liberalism is??

But regardless of who you consider your ideological forefathers, it is a fact that FDR's contemporary detractors called him a socialist all the time.

Doesn't make them right.

As I've said elsewhere, people like you have been applying that term to EVERYONE they don't like for a very, very long time.

People like me??

I only apply that term to people who advocate collective or government ownership/control/administration over the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

 

[YDB95]

Doesn't make them right.

My point exactly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My point exactly.

I noticed you avoided my questions.

Seems your point was to try and paint me as something other than what I am.

 

[YDB95]

I noticed you avoided my questions.

Seems your point was to try and paint me as something other than what I am.

I avoided your questions because I see no point in trying to reason with someone who sees so many things as fundamentally different than they really are. You think any sort of safety net legislation at all is communistic, or at least socialistic. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not going to bother with trying to reason with you on topics that you simply redefine to fit your ideology.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I avoided your questions because I see no point in trying to reason with someone who sees so many things as fundamentally different than they really are.

Such as??

You think any sort of safety net legislation at all is communistic, or at least socialistic.

Your assumption, not my thoughts.

I think any "safety net" legislation aimed at redistributing wealth is socialistic in nature.

Public services, like a public option HC system, however are not....especially when paid for through equal taxation.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not going to bother with trying to reason with you on topics that you simply redefine to fit your ideology.

I haven't redefined anything, you've made a bunch of assumptions.

 

[YDB95]

I haven't redefined anything, you've made a bunch of assumptions.

Sure you have. In this very post, your use of the term "redistributing wealth" is a perfect example of that. I don't see any point in trying to reason with anyone who thinks that's a reasonable way of putting it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sure you have. In this very post, your use of the term "redistributing wealth" is a perfect example of that. I don't see any point in trying to reason with anyone who thinks that's a reasonable way of putting it.

What do consider a reasonable term for describing the state taking money/resources from one person or group and giving to another???

 

[YDB95]

What do consider a reasonable term for describing the state taking money/resources from one person or group and giving to another???

First of all, I don't see it as "taking money/resources from one person or group" so much as it's charging a fee for services rendered. We all benefit from clean air, safe food and clothing, well-maintained streets, the ability to walk down those streets with a reasonable expectation of safety, an educated populace, etc. Likewise, we all benefit from knowing there'll be a helping hand available if we fall on hard times and need the help (as nearly everyone does sooner or later). As President Obama said, "You didn't build that." That you classify it as "taking" gets back to my earlier point about you redefining terms. But to answer your question, I see it as providing for the common good. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BotanyBoy]

First of all, I don't see it as "taking money/resources from one person or group" so much as it's charging a fee for services rendered.

Fees for services rendered is voluntary, only charged to those who use the services.

Taxes are not voluntary...taxes are forced under the explicit threat of punitive action up to and including violence by the state against you.

That you classify it as "taking" gets back to my earlier point about you redefining terms.

How is the government threatening force of violence if you don't hand over your money/resources/property/wealth not "taking" from people?

tak·​ing
Legal Definition of taking
1: a seizure of private property or a substantial deprivation of the right to its free use or enjoyment that is caused by government action

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/taking

That's not redefining terms, that's being honest about how the state works and what the confiscation of wealth/private property/resources under the threat of violence is.

Something leftist seem incapable of doing.

But to answer your question, I see it as providing for the common good. Nothing more, nothing less.

So taking peoples shit by force of violence, and giving it to others is called "providing for the common good"???

LMFAO!!!

Who's redefining terms now??

In the real world, when the government takes a bunch of money/resources from one person or group and gives it to another, adults call that "wealth redistribution.".

 

[YDB95]

Violence for failure to pay taxes? I think I missed that Law & Order episode, I'm afraid.

 

[DawnONight]

Actually I have not had time to look yet. Perhaps this afternoon.

So I took a quick run around the internet, checked out your links and see that the history of this rolls back to the days of "other" monikers being used to describe African Americans. It was offered up, has become the term of the day, but still I find numerous references to it still being offensive to many.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-widatalla-poc-intersectionality-race-20190428-story.html

https://www.sapiens.org/column/race/people-of-color/

Above are two, lots more out there though.

Which is the tone I perceive used by the originator of the thread.

Don't like my opinion, that is fine.

I do wonder how we would discriminate if we were blind... I get the idea some people still would.

Your opinion is your opinion, I neither like nor dislike it.

Opinions, however, can be mistaken, as yours is in this case.

First, I adopted the term "person/people of color" out of deference to what most "non-whites" I know prefer. I work with many people of color in volunteer work I do in Milwaukee. That is the term almost all of them use for themselves and others of similar heritage. A few still refer to themselves as "black."

It is actually your term, "Caucasian," that has fallen out of favor in the USA. It harkens back to a time when it was believed there were meaningful differences between the "races" then classified under the archaic terms: Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. DNA science has shown that these classifications are meaningless, so they are no longer used by anyone but racists.

There is more genetic diversity in one band of Bonobo chimps than there is in the entirety of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species. The whole concept of "race" is outdated. At the same time, while I reject the concept of "race," I do understand it has been historically used in the USA in disgraceful ways against people of color. As one of the previously cited sources points out:

Because the term "people of color" includes vastly different people with only the common distinction of not being white, it draws attention to the fundamental role of racialization in the United States. Joseph Tuman argues that the term "people of color" is attractive because it unites disparate racial and ethnic groups into a larger collective in solidarity with one another.​

Person of Color, Wikipedia (accessed Nov. 12, 2019) (citating Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating terror. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-7619-2765-5.).

That's why I use "person/people of color."