2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Florida Man said:
It’s because white has been the majority and dominant demographic for a long time. Any form of minority representation will be a big deal until it’s so normal, that it’s not worth mentioning anymore.
Click to expand...
Florida Man said:
POC is a much wider demographic so it looks like more of an achievement than just being the first Asian. I don’t mind the labeling that much because our looks and skin color are noticeable traits that no one will ever ignore.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t disagree with anything that you’ve said at all. Just as a white man I've always wondered am I just saying “there are white people, and others, and that’s the only distinction to make” which feels weird given the experiences of African Americans, Asian americans, Arab americans, Latino Americans etc in the US have been distinct.

I know someone who was the manager at a restaurant. They had laid off a number of black employees (I think all, which was maybe 3 or 4 people) and cited performance related reasons. I remember they and the owners discussing whether this could/would be labelled as racially motivated. One of them said “how can they say we’re racist, we employ a ton of Hispanics”...they didn’t seem to realise that wouldn’t be of much good to a black person seeking work, nor did it disprove one was racist towards black people. That idea of “well they’re all minorities so it’s all one thing” was like a slap in the face to me and one I guess I try to avoid. More so that recognising that a candidate of a particular race is indeed of that race.

If mods consider this derailing the thread or going off topic I am happy to be PMd
 
Charlie Foley said:
Wouldn’t disagree with anything that you’ve said at all. Just as a white man I've always wondered am I just saying “there are white people, and others, and that’s the only distinction to make” which feels weird given the experiences of African Americans, Asian americans, Arab americans, Latino Americans etc in the US have been distinct.

I know someone who was the manager at a restaurant. They had laid off a number of black employees (I think all, which was maybe 3 or 4 people) and cited performance related reasons. I remember they and the owners discussing whether this could/would be labelled as racially motivated. One of them said “how can they say we’re racist, we employ a ton of Hispanics”...they didn’t seem to realise that wouldn’t be of much good to a black person seeking work, nor did it disprove one was racist towards black people. That idea of “well they’re all minorities so it’s all one thing” was like a slap in the face to me and one I guess I try to avoid. More so that recognising that a candidate of a particular race is indeed of that race.

If mods consider this derailing the thread or going off topic I am happy to be PMd
Click to expand...
I don't think those two situations compare and you might be overthinking it imo.
 
berbatrick said:
Kiss of death for Bernie :nervous:

Click to expand...


Like Trump, I think Bernie's numbers are better than what they are polling at, mainly because he inspires very good turnout. The others not so much. To be viable, he would need to cut into Biden's domination of the black vote in the south - otherwise Biden will sweep every single southern and southwestern state (bar NM).
 
Kentonio said:
He sounds like quite a prick.
Click to expand...
There’s this. And then there’s the “Medicare for all. On it.” tweet from earlier this year. Changed his tune very quickly on that one, you can’t really trust people like this.

On top of that though, how he talks/types is unbearable. People who type out those oral speech interjections like he does in a lot of his tweets are such twats.
 
Charlie Foley said:
There’s this. And then there’s the “Medicare for all. On it.” tweet from earlier this year. Changed his tune very quickly on that one, you can’t really trust people like this.

On top of that though, how he talks/types is unbearable. People who type out those oral speech interjections like he does in a lot of his tweets are such twats.
Click to expand...
Good, it's not just me.
 


It's very possible they picked this set of interviews intentionally, but interesting that the 2 older people remain hostile after being wrong a few times.
 
berbatrick said:


It's very possible they picked this set of interviews intentionally, but interesting that the 2 older people remain hostile after being wrong a few times.
Click to expand...

The lady when asked her opinion on what she would think if ambulances were free - "sometimes if things are free, they are not worth having".... How dumb do you have to be to come out with that. Ambulances would clearly be the most useless thing if they were provided free instead of having to pay for them....
 
Dargonk said:
The lady when asked her opinion on what she would think if ambulances were free - "sometimes if things are free, they are not worth having".... How dumb do you have to be to come out with that. Ambulances would clearly be the most useless thing if they were provided free instead of having to pay for them....
Click to expand...
America must not be worth having then.
 
Don't wsnt to bring out depression from across the pond here but Trump will win. Too many deplorables in both countries.
 


The replies to this tweet are worth reading, especially paired with the supposed punch-line about Blair-as-the-enemy from liberals in the Corbyn and Labour threads. I knew, from 2004, that a good chunk of the US population didn't give a shit about non-US lives. I assumed this was the conservative half.

In 2008, when Obama swept away Clinton with the main difference between the two being Iraq support, I thought that that indifference was confined to the right. This began to crack in the Bernie-Clinton support, when there were plenty of groans from the liberal opinion-writers whenever Bernie brought up her vote to illustrate the difference between their outlooks and judgements on foreign policy. Then here, on libcafe, there was a growing chorus for Blair once Corbyn became leader. Criticism of him from the let, which does centre around Iraq, is a punchline to a joke here. Now in 2019, with ex-CIA/NSA/FBI people across CNN and MSNBC, with Corbyn dead and with Biden on the rise, what is very apparent is that most libs treat it as some policy failure, perhaps salvegeable with better wartime command, rather than a moral catastrophe.

It's making me a lot more sympathetic to ethnonationalists tbh.
 
berbatrick said:


The replies to this tweet are worth reading, especially paired with the supposed punch-line about Blair-as-the-enemy from liberals in the Corbyn and Labour threads. I knew, from 2004, that a good chunk of the US population didn't give a shit about non-US lives. I assumed this was the conservative half.

In 2008, when Obama swept away Clinton with the main difference between the two being Iraq support, I thought that that indifference was confined to the right. This began to crack in the Bernie-Clinton support, when there were plenty of groans from the liberal opinion-writers whenever Bernie brought up her vote to illustrate the difference between their outlooks and judgements on foreign policy. Then here, on libcafe, there was a growing chorus for Blair once Corbyn became leader. Criticism of him from the let, which does centre around Iraq, is a punchline to a joke here. Now in 2019, with ex-CIA/NSA/FBI people across CNN and MSNBC, with Corbyn dead and with Biden on the rise, what is very apparent is that most libs treat it as some policy failure, perhaps salvegeable with better wartime command, rather than a moral catastrophe.

It's making me a lot more sympathetic to ethnonationalists tbh.
Click to expand...

Et tu berbatrick?
 
berbatrick said:


The replies to this tweet are worth reading, especially paired with the supposed punch-line about Blair-as-the-enemy from liberals in the Corbyn and Labour threads. I knew, from 2004, that a good chunk of the US population didn't give a shit about non-US lives. I assumed this was the conservative half.

In 2008, when Obama swept away Clinton with the main difference between the two being Iraq support, I thought that that indifference was confined to the right. This began to crack in the Bernie-Clinton support, when there were plenty of groans from the liberal opinion-writers whenever Bernie brought up her vote to illustrate the difference between their outlooks and judgements on foreign policy. Then here, on libcafe, there was a growing chorus for Blair once Corbyn became leader. Criticism of him from the let, which does centre around Iraq, is a punchline to a joke here. Now in 2019, with ex-CIA/NSA/FBI people across CNN and MSNBC, with Corbyn dead and with Biden on the rise, what is very apparent is that most libs treat it as some policy failure, perhaps salvegeable with better wartime command, rather than a moral catastrophe.

It's making me a lot more sympathetic to ethnonationalists tbh.
Click to expand...


So called liberals and left in UK elected Blair after opposing him on the war. So it was already painted as just a policy failure way back when and more importantly not as important as any domestic policy. At least the yanks were open about electing Bush because of support for a president during wartime.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.