The Democrats can't win without the black vote.
They thought, being the party of expanding welfare programs, it was guaranteed for at least 144 more years.
So the direction of polling trends since President Trump took office has them worried.
Biden didn't fuck up, he was simply trying to get black Americans back in line by playing on their racial pride. Which unfortunately, if history is anything to go by, will probably work.
It's a vicious circle. The Dems at election time play on the 'look at you living in a shithole, we can help' appeal yet once in charge stand back allow the shitholes to grow. Welfare dependency gets them votes. More dependency, more votes.
Undeniably these are weird and Biden is a full on rapist, but surely with almost all politicians you could find a few hundred pictures of them touching children, etc, right? Kissing babies is still a thing they do, I assume.
Maybe not Trump. Can't imagine him going near children unless they're related to him or russian prossies.
Not in quite the same way, but a similar general principle has applied. In the USA it's more of a deliberate attempt to keep black voters dependenton them, in this country it's just the mistaken assumption that immigrant communities will be on their side automatically because the Tories are racist.
What they both have in common is ignorance towards a streak of quite traditional conservatism amongst parts of both demographics, though again, for slightly different reasons and obviously very different histories.
My two penneth is that this is just what happens when a school of thought prevails that attempts to erase the impact of class from political discussion or analysis.
Overall it's a socialism thing, where the state has control rather than the individual. Having a mass of people depending on welfare is easy to control. Socialism splits people into to being either organisers or being the organised, with a single supreme organiser at the very top. It's easy to organise those sucking from the teat of the state.
This kind of thing has been happening for a while but this is the first time I've seen it so mainstream. Increasingly, if a minority or poof doesn't support labour/democrats they're seen as self-hating with internalised -ism. There are people that seem to believe it's impossible to be a working class Tory or a lesbian republican.
As Douglas Murray says, he's gay but the wrong type of gay because he's a conservative. If you're gay in their thinking then by default you have to be left wing. Or if you're black you can't be right wing, if you are then you're an Uncle Tom or coconut. It's almost as if they think certain people act and think in a certain way. Supercilious prejudice seems to go a long way in left leaning circles.
What you're describing is the fundamental principle of essentialist identitarian liberalism. Or in layman's terms, identity politics. The purpose is to obfuscate class consciousness by focusing people on their inherent traits as a group identifier, and even as you say, create false consciousness wherein people think gayness or skin colour is inherently tied to political ideology.
Nothing has ever been so effective at suppressing left wing political support.
>>89758 I reckon it's too early in the day for that. Trump will win but as we get closer to November there will be all sorts of shit flinging going on that will send bookies odds all over the place.
I'm waiting to see news stories in October (at the earliest) of Biden polling ahead in the race. Anything before that is just betting on Red.
It's also possible to be very, very rich at the same time as being gay or black. Possibly even both. Being a conservative isn't thick then, it's in your self interest, and none of the things that supposedly make conservatism your enemy as a black gay are a problem whatsoever; because you are very, very rich.
That's the false consciousness I was talking about. There's one common denominator that matters far more than gender, race or sexuality.
Yes. In the US more than here or anywhere else in the world, money is class, race, and social standing. There's people who post here who are worth more than some in the landed gentry, yet we will never be 'upper class' - in America if you've got the money, that's it. Once a black person has enough zeros in their bank account they are treated almost always like a white man, and in america that means everything.
Well... Not quite. They still have their Old Money types, and if you're not part of that OG Colonial Crackas club you'll never be in it, even if you're the President of the United States. This is a large part of the reason the US establishment has vilified Trump, he's not part of that old reptilian aristocracy, even if he's filthy fucking rich. There's a reason Tiger Woods was fair game for wholesale press slander, and it's the same reason premiership footballers and celebrities over here are. Filthy rich, but still working class.
Even so, money still makes enough of a difference to make almost any and all racially, sexually or gender based discrimination complaint utterly irrelevant. I'm reminded of the thing we have over here where West Ham fans chuck bananas at black players. I heard one of those players speaking at an interview and he said, with a degree of frankness the interviewers weren't expecting, that it's hard to let insults like that get under his skin when he earns more in a week than many of those people do in their lives.
Money changes the balance of power. If I'm a middle class white guy, and I called the black CEO of an oil company a monkey, the balance of power is squarely in his favour because he is so rich. Calling him a monkey is no longer punching down like it would be if I called a street youf from East London the same thing.
That's what I already alluded to in mentioning the strong streak of traditional conservatism amongst US black and British Asian demographics. They certainly have their reasons- With black folks it's because they desire the most freedom possible and least inSURFerence from white men in government. In British Asians it's because they want the freedom to lock their women in cupboards or exploit the workers in their carpet emporium.
But the case is still pretty strong that being conservative when you're poor is in fact a sign you're thick.
>>89762 >It's also possible to be very, very rich at the same time as being gay or black. Possibly even both.
Yes, and the Democratic party exists to represent the interests of very, very rich social liberals/minorities, while the Republican party exists to represent the interests of very, very rich social conservatives/WASPs.
Donald Trump has called for November's presidential election to be postponed, saying increased postal voting could lead to fraud and inaccurate results.
He suggested a delay until people can "properly, securely and safely" vote.×There is little evidence to support Mr Trump's claims but he has long railed against mail-in voting which he has said would be susceptible to fraud
US states want to make postal voting easier due to public health concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.
>>90118 The brass balls of the man to even suggest it.
Either the "Chinese virus" is a hoax and doesn't exist and we can all go out again, or it does exist and its too dangerous to vote; either ends of those extreme views are his to own.
>>90120 If I remember correctly, Trump didn't actually call coronavirus a hoax; he was calling the way the Democrats had portrayed his administration's response to the pandemic as a hoax.
People decided to run with the half-truth because it suits their narrative and the current trend for zippy one liners and gotchas.
>>90124 Sigh. I find Trump abhorrent but that doesn't mean I'm happy for people to distort what he's said, particularly when there's more than enough legitimate things to criticise him for, just because they're on my "side".
“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs . . . They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that . . . we’ve lost nobody, and you wonder, the press is in hysteria mode.“
So Trump's language is vague as if to say 'it is a hoax' or if it is 'a new version of Democrat tactics'. He also says though that the Democrats politicised the issue, and says there is news hysteria because of 15 cases. It is of course important to frontrunner reality so by the time there are 4 million cases and he has told people to liberal cities under lockdown and discouraged wearing masks it is normalised and 'they' started it.
Trump's nebulously vague manner of speech is what makes him an accidentally great politician. It's a gift to the Republican party because there's plausible deniability on anything he says, no matter what. You can never pin down exactly what the fuck he's on about, because there's often little genuine meaning at all to be ascertained from this type of fragmented, slurred stream of consciousness. It's a lot like how drunk people talk.
