Classic Trump

[curiousaboutbb]

Yeah I think I’m gonna sit this one out too!

My right to love who I want, have sex with who I want, watch or read porn, simply be on this site or vote in the future aren’t worth me going out and voting. 

It’s pretty clear we have the choice between freedom and Christian nationalism in this election. If Project 2025 is implemented to the extent that they want, we will all be criminals simply because of who we are.  They intend to make this a Christian Nationalist nation and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

No candidate has ever and will not ever represent 100% of my interest or what I want.  However, I will be voting for the one who at least says that I should have rights and the ability to choose to vote in the future. The beauty of our system of government is that we can vote them out in four years

Everyone has the right to choose to sit at home and not vote in this election. 
 

In the future the decision may be made for you. 

 

Edited August 11 by curiousaboutbb

[PozBearWI]

@curiousaboutbb you do have the right to sit this one out.  

I submit though that when we sit out an election; we are already letting others make the decision for us.  

[curiousaboutbb]

That was 100% my point!

Elections have consequences! So it is not voting!  If you sit this one out, you may not have the chance to make a decision in the future.

Edited August 11 by curiousaboutbb

[BlackDude]

19 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

Neither presidential campaign supports the interests of the black vote - which is what this thread was originally about. 

Like you @BlackDude and myself, I know MANY black folks who will NOT be voting this election cycle.

Bye blue Georgia and possibly Michigan.

 

Since we are going there, it is baffles me that a lot of these races that are too close to call, yet democratic party is basically willing to flip the bird to 10 to 15% of their electorate. 
 

The Democratic strategy for black voters is basically to pander to black women. They think there is some Medea character is every family who is basically going to boss all the men and young people to the polls. They have no agenda or incentives to vote. 

What Dems thought they were going to do is run to clock on us until they replaced us with their new “Frankenstein”coalition of voters and supplant the difference with “casual racist.”  (The Hillary strategy) But new black voters caught on.

The strategy of neutralizing black voters is doomed to fail because most non-black people split down the middle 50/50. 

 

[viking8x6]

Actually, the original post was about Trump, and his being held accountable for his past and present attitudes about Black people in general and about Kamala Harris in particular.

To be honest, as a White person (through no fault of my own) who is well-disposed toward Black people, I'm confused by the direction this thread has taken.

It seems we have agreed that Kamala Harris is in fact Black, and from what I've read recently in reputable media, she has had reasonable exposure in her past to what I'd describe as "Black culture" - certainly enough not to be ignorant of it.

I totally get that she's socioeconomically out of line with the vast majority of the Black populace. However, given the way our system is set up, that's going to be true of any candidate for high office.

So I don't really understand how exactly the Democratic party is "flipping the bird" to Black people.

I'm not saying that it isn't the case, what I'm saying is that I haven't heard (here) HOW they are failing to "support the interests of the Black vote" and what those interests are, and without having some clue about that, on the face of it your assertions don't make sense to me.

It's your right to sit this one out, though as others have pointed out, Trump is a tremendous threat not only to the interests of Black voters but to American democracy itself, and that may be a reason to vote without regard to your own interests.  I do have a question, though:

I will be voting, at least for that reason, and also because I consider it my civic duty.  Who would you rather I vote for, Trump or Harris? That is to say, if you had to choose one, which would it be?

 

[BlackDude]

7 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Actually, the original post was about Trump, and his being held accountable for his past and present attitudes about Black people in general and about Kamala Harris in particular.

To be honest, as a White person (through no fault of my own) who is well-disposed toward Black people, I'm confused by the direction this thread has taken.

It seems we have agreed that Kamala Harris is in fact Black, and from what I've read recently in reputable media, she has had reasonable exposure in her past to what I'd describe as "Black culture" - certainly enough not to be ignorant of it.

I totally get that she's socioeconomically out of line with the vast majority of the Black populace. However, given the way our system is set up, that's going to be true of any candidate for high office.

So I don't really understand how exactly the Democratic party is "flipping the bird" to Black people.

I'm not saying that it isn't the case, what I'm saying is that I haven't heard (here) HOW they are failing to "support the interests of the Black vote" and what those interests are, and without having some clue about that, on the face of it your assertions don't make sense to me.

It's your right to sit this one out, though as others have pointed out, Trump is a tremendous threat not only to the interests of Black voters but to American democracy itself, and that may be a reason to vote without regard to your own interests.  I do have a question, though:

I will be voting, at least for that reason, and also because I consider it my civic duty.  Who would you rather I vote for, Trump or Harris? That is to say, if you had to choose one, which would it be?

 

Thank you for your reasoned response. I will try to break it down for you:

As I’ve mentioned before, Most Black people would not have cared if Kamala Harris was black or not. For a lot of black constituents, the main focus was on her work as the district attorney of San Francisco and her policies towards Black people.

However, Kamala Harris and her supporters made blackness issue by trying to credential herself as a black person. And when we look at Kamala Harris‘s life, she has no connection to black society out outside of her attending an HBCU and being in a sorority almost 40 years ago. In particular, she has no black men in her life. Therefore, she is not relatable to most black people. It’s not Enough to be exposed to us.
 

And what Donald Trump said was not out of the norm from a lot of the conversations that are being had. That does not mean that people are Trumpers, but again if you’re gonna wear our uniform, we have to check your credentials.

Edited August 12 by BlackDude

[BootmanLA]

@BlackDude I think I understand where you're coming from. That said: for decades, Democratic politicians quietly solicited the votes of gay people, telling us "someday" things would be better for us, while Republican politicians actively sought to drive us back into the closet. At that same time, Democratic politicians were openly supportive of all sorts of "demands" (for lack of a better word) from the African-American community. We voted Democratic because we believed that even if Bill Clinton said he was against same-sex marriage, he was still better than George HW Bush. Even if he ended up supporting Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it was better than the Republicans' wish to dishonorably discharge anyone they found out was gay (and actively snooping to try to find out who was). And we voted for Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry because even if they weren't particularly strong on LGBT rights, they were (a) infinitely better than their GOP counterparts and (b) they were on the right side on racial issues, on women's issues, and so forth.

And I'd point out that what WAS achieved for Black Americans, from the 1950's forward, was due not only to Black people organizing and demanding, but to a significant portion of White Americans raising their voices, too, and telling their representatives that they, too, wouldn't stand for discrimination any more. Quite a few White people gave their lives, alongside their Black brothers and sisters, for the cause of civil rights on the basis of race, NOT because they stood to gain from the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, but because it was the right thing to do.

So forgive me if I seem somewhat dismayed that when all of us, Black and White alike, are facing a shitstorm of bad things if Trump is returned to office, some of us are saying "But SHE isn't saying the right things to MEEEEEEEEEE to earn my vote as a Black man." If all White people had done that back in the 50's and 60's, you might still be facing Jim Crow laws blocking your ability to even register to vote.

[topblkmale]

15 hours ago, BlackDude said:

 

 For a lot of black constituents, the main focus was on her work as the district attorney of San Francisco and her policies towards Black people.

 

SHE took pride in locking up black men. 
 

[BlackDude]

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

@BlackDude I think I understand where you're coming from. That said: for decades, Democratic politicians quietly solicited the votes of gay people, telling us "someday" things would be better for us, while Republican politicians actively sought to drive us back into the closet. At that same time, Democratic politicians were openly supportive of all sorts of "demands" (for lack of a better word) from the African-American community. We voted Democratic because we believed that even if Bill Clinton said he was against same-sex marriage, he was still better than George HW Bush. Even if he ended up supporting Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it was better than the Republicans' wish to dishonorably discharge anyone they found out was gay (and actively snooping to try to find out who was). And we voted for Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry because even if they weren't particularly strong on LGBT rights, they were (a) infinitely better than their GOP counterparts and (b) they were on the right side on racial issues, on women's issues, and so forth.

And I'd point out that what WAS achieved for Black Americans, from the 1950's forward, was due not only to Black people organizing and demanding, but to a significant portion of White Americans raising their voices, too, and telling their representatives that they, too, wouldn't stand for discrimination any more. Quite a few White people gave their lives, alongside their Black brothers and sisters, for the cause of civil rights on the basis of race, NOT because they stood to gain from the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, but because it was the right thing to do.

So forgive me if I seem somewhat dismayed that when all of us, Black and White alike, are facing a shitstorm of bad things if Trump is returned to office, some of us are saying "But SHE isn't saying the right things to MEEEEEEEEEE to earn my vote as a Black man." If all White people had done that back in the 50's and 60's, you might still be facing Jim Crow laws blocking your ability to even register to vote.

1. Since the Civil Rights Bill, that was passed 60 years ago, the Democrats have done absolutely nothing for Black people. They’ve created a bunch of minority bills that they have allowed everyone to benefit from.

2. The LGBT community has had far more specifically targeted let’s passed for them in the  past few decades, then Black people. That’s just a fact.

3. There wasn’t a bunch of benevolent white people who decided to get Black people their civil rights. That is a there was a lot of Black people in the streets and doing a lot of other acts that forced the government to give us the equality we were entitled to.

4. The Civil Rights Act was just that: civil rights. A lot of people were OK with it because it did not require (white) society to give up anything except some social real estate at the edges of society. Sure you can sit at the lunch counter, but asking for a loan so you could own your own lunch counter was out of the question.

5. Again, politics is the distribution of resources. Just because you did some for 60 years ago doesn’t mean we have to continue sacrificing our voice in perpetuity.

6. No one would tell a Jewish rabbi that because we fought in World War II decades ago that they aren’t allowed to ask for anything for their vote think of every everyone else when they vote.

7. Donald Trump was already in office. And we survived. We’re not afraid of project 2025. 

8. This is a new breed of black voters. We are no longer gonna let legislation that was passed in the civil rights era to be used to finger wag to guilt us into voting for the Democrats in perpetuity. That was not a favor. It was a right that was entitled to us as citizens of this country.

[BlackDude]

3 hours ago, topblkmale said:

SHE took pride in locking up black men. 
 

Black women too.

[topblkmale]

2 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Black women too.

 

She is a black woman.

Lest we forget.

 

[Poz50something]

23 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Thank you for your reasoned response. I will try to break it down for you:

As I’ve mentioned before, Most Black people would not have cared if Kamala Harris was black or not. For a lot of black constituents, the main focus was on her work as the district attorney of San Francisco and her policies towards Black people.

Let's unwrap her work as the district attorney of San Francisco. 

One of her signature programs when she was the district attorney of San Francisco was called "Back On Track."... a relatively small program that Kamala Harris started in the San Francisco District Attorney's office. It was an alternative to incarceration for first-time nonviolent offenders. They would have a felony on their record, but that felony would be expunged if they finished the program.... she got 24 Hour Fitness to donate memberships to the program. And it was a pretty successful program, given how small it was. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923369723/lets-talk-about-kamala-harris

She also declined to pursue the death penalty in a murder case that enraged SF police unions when Officer Isaac Espinoza was gunned down in 2004 at Baby Hunter's Point, a predominantly African American district. Dianne Feinstein herself was opposed to Harrs' decision to not seek the death penalty. A resident of the district was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment for this murder.   [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/justice-for-officer-espinoza-peace-for-the-city-2789147.php

 

Now let's unwrap Harris' work as attorney general of California - 

1. Harris worked with Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg in 2013 to introduce the Homeowner Bill of Rights, considered one of the strongest protections nationwide against aggressive foreclosure tactics. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/calif-attorney-general-kamala-harris-fights-for-struggling-homeowners/

2. In 2015, Harris obtained a $1.2 billion judgment against for-profit Corinthian Colleges for false advertising and deceptive marketing targeting vulnerable, low-income students and misrepresenting job placement rates to students, investors, and accreditation agencies. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article2579497.html . The article states that Corinthian Colleges used aggressive marketing  strategies employing high pressure marketers to target low-income and socially-isolated  students to sign up for th colleges.

3. Harris opposed California's ban on affirmative action[78] and filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas asking that the Court "reaffirm its decision that public colleges and universities may consider race as one factor in admissions decisions. She did this despite Asian American opposition to affirmative action.  Here's the brief Harris filed to the SC in support of affirmative action: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/14-981 bsac California.pdf 

4. In 2011, Harris urged criminal penalties for parents of truant children, allowing the court to defer judgment if the parent agreed to a mediation period to get their child back in school. Critics charged that local prosecutors implementing her directives were overzealous in their enforcement and Harris's policy adversely affected families. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-truancy-arrests-2020-progressive-prosecutor_n_5c995789e4b0f7bfa1b57d2e. 

5. In 2015, she conducted a 90-day review of implicit bias in policing and police use of deadly force.

6. In April 2015, Harris introduced the first-of-its-kind "Principled Policing: Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias" training to help law enforcement officers overcome barriers to neutral policing and rebuild trust between law enforcement and the public. 

7. The same year, the California Department of Justice became the nation's first statewide agency to require all its police officers to wear body cameras.

8. In 2016, Harris announced a patterns and practices investigation into purported civil rights violations and use of excessive force by the two largest law enforcement agencies in Kern County, California.  [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-utexas-82

 

However, Kamala Harris and her supporters made blackness issue by trying to credential herself as a black person.

She's also Asian btw, something she hasn't tried to hide. See above for what she's done for the black community as attorney general of California. If I, in the cold, frozen North can do a simple search on Google, so can you. 

And when we look at Kamala Harris‘s life, she has no connection to black society out outside of her attending an HBCU and being in a sorority almost 40 years ago.

and yet, Howard University saw fit to  award Harris with not one, but two honorary doctorates. On May 15, 2015, Harris received a Doctor of Laws from the University of Southern California. On May 13, 2017, she received a Doctor of Humane Letters from Howard University. I hate to shock you, but many AKAs are members for life, and even I had to facetiously clutch my pearls to find out they are quite active in their later life. Harris wasn't just active many years ago, she is active NOW. 

 Here she is giving a speech at the AKA convention in Dallas. 

In particular, she has no black men in her life. 

Her father doesn't count? But here's what you said: Most Black people would not have cared if Kamala Harris was black or not .But who she loves suddenly matters? She  must meet your 'purity' standards? He has to be black? And how do you know she doesn't have close black male friends?  Are you her agenda keeper? 

 

Edited August 13 by Poz50something

[viking8x6]

13 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Donald Trump was already in office. And we survived. We’re not afraid of project 2025. 

Some of us believe you probably should be. In particular given Trump's history of alignment with White Nationalists and his obvious tendency to autocracy.

[tallslenderguy]

On 8/11/2024 at 10:06 PM, BlackDude said:

As I’ve mentioned before, Most Black people would not have cared if Kamala Harris was black or not. For a lot of black constituents, the main focus was on her work as the district attorney of San Francisco and her policies towards Black people.

 

How do you know this? Not saying that you don't, i want to understand how you determine, then conclude, what most Black people care about?

i confess i didn't know much about Harris until more recently. For instance, i always saw her as a Black woman and didn't realize she was of mixed race until more recently.  But as mentioned in another post, things i see as a good, on a very base level, are Kamala is a woman, Black and Indian.  

Again, it's a very base response on my part because i think those factors will bring perspectives to the office that we have never had.  i appreciate your perspective that Kamala is not relatable to you as a Black person.  And i get that on some level. Tom Cruise is not relatable to me as a gay person (sorry lol, tongue in cheek).  But, as i see it, even if Kamala spent most of her life trying to distance herself from being Black (not saying she has, speculating here), one thing she cannot change is how others see her.  i'm thinking stuff like racial profiling. If she was alone and unknown and driving down a street, or walked into a store, i think most Americans would see a Black person and a woman?  And i see both as unique perspective for the office. i have no experience of what it means to be a woman, and no experience of what it means to be Black... or both. She does. How she experienced and responded is individual, but she cannot have gotten away from being either of those through out her life, and it has affected her and given her perspectives that the primary office of the white house has never had. 

 i wish our political system was such that more refined issues were the major considerations for voting, but as diverse as this countries population is, we only have two choices of who will sit in the seat of power.

i think it's sad that it's come to this, but i'd vote for just about anyone to keep Trump and certain (not all) of his zealot supporters out of such an influential power position. i'm just as concerned about some of the people Trump brings with him as i am about him. i can easily imagine pushing through agenda that is harmful to me as an individual, and i think harmful to us as a society. 

[PozTalkAuthor]

"trump was already there and we survived", "not scared of project 2025"?

Talk for yourself.

I am white. I am European. I should be the one not to give a damn on what America's politics will go? But I'm scared, instead. Scared because those laws and campaigns Trump has, in the long term will affect all over the world: HIV research and awareness, women and LGBT rights, people with disability's rights...

And not to forget that most technology we're using is American, regardless of the countries we live in. 

Our tech's "soul" (namely servers, protocols and so on) are American. And, in the best case, out of America we have Chinese stuff with China even less friendly about inclusion, than us.

Here in Europe we have many far-right politicians starting to bust our balls...

I personally don't label myself "leftist", I don't feel represented by extreme positions. But I really don't understand how some gay, some black, some people with disability as well... are spitting in the face to everyone who in the past and present struggle for everyone's empowerment and inclusion.

Self-punishment maybe?

If I do not judge "self-punishment" practice in sex, I do judge them when it's done through politic choices which go against our own rights; and I judge them because their choices create a damage to entire countries.

If someone wants to deny HIV, deny our rights, or even climate change... Free to think what you want but on your own bed. Do not push forwards politicians with your WEIRD ideas.