Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially so in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
On May 23 2020 07:36 cLutZ wrote: Didn't Charlamagne have a weird controversial interview with Warren too? Seems to me that Democrats should avoid his program if they are expecting a softball interview, even though that was an unforced error by Joe.
OFC, this is a problem all the time for Dems when they venture into the podcast world, or anything outside center-left corporate media. That's just a foreseeable downside to not being challenged enough. Trial by fire, as they say.
I wouldn't say all of the Dems. Yang and Bernie did a pretty good job with Rogan and other podcasts. It's just that people like Biden, Warren, and Harris etc aren't meant for that platform. They're better in-person or through video clips. Them on a podcast is just inviting danger.
I still think Yang gave one of the best interviews on a podcast with Rogan (Bernie a very close second).
On May 23 2020 07:27 NewSunshine wrote: I'd prefer to see the whole thing before we start a more protracted discussion on one quote from it. It's definitely questionable from what I'm seeing, but context matters too.
Full thing here:
There's not really any context, the clip is the end of the interview. It's just a shitty phrase he blurts out.
Also maybe it's me but Biden's tone is so tiring to listen to. He seems a little aggravated constantly.
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially the case in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
No (was that an intentional reference to her hot sauce in her bag comment on the same show?). Not just the pollsters That's the beauty of giving probability predictions of one-time events. You can't be wrong.
The Biden was "being real" spin is one of the most comical since he's literally had to drop out of a previous race for lying and has been demonstrated as lying about stuff like getting arrested meeting Nelson Mandela and working in the civil rights movement. Lies he's told this cycle.
The "return to decency" narrative of Biden's campaign is problematic on a lot of fronts really.
On May 23 2020 07:27 NewSunshine wrote: I'd prefer to see the whole thing before we start a more protracted discussion on one quote from it. It's definitely questionable from what I'm seeing, but context matters too.
There's not really any context, the clip is the end of the interview. It's just a shitty phrase he blurts out.
Also maybe it's me but Biden's tone is so tiring to listen to. He seems a little aggravated constantly.
It doesn't play well, for sure. I get what he's trying to say, but in addition to being a bit racially... forward, I guess I'll say, it also comes off too much as an "I'm not Trump, so I'm all you've got" kind of statement too, so I think that combo is what really makes it resonate poorly with folks. However, I also don't think it's the end of the world for him. Farv is right, things don't stick as much as they used to, and with Trump flinging shit, throwing tantrums, dredging up distractions, and encouraging Americans to harm themselves at every turn, it's very difficult for any one thing to stick around long enough to really matter.
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially the case in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
No (was that an intentional reference to her hot sauce in her bag comment on the same show?). Not just the pollsters That's the beauty of giving probability predictions of one-time events. You can't be wrong.
The Biden was "being real" spin is one of the most comical since he's literally had to drop out of a previous race for lying and has been demonstrated as lying about stuff like getting arrested meeting Nelson Mandela and working in the civil rights movement. Lies he's told this cycle.
The "return to decency" narrative of Biden's campaign is problematic on a lot of fronts really.
Biden having a strangely entitled view on his race platform while bending the truth constantly is him "being real" just as Trump making fun of people with disabilities and saying discombobulated inarticulate things is him "being real." Doing a bad job of pretending to care about a particular policy point (in an identifiable manner) is not the prominent indicator that many believe imo.
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially the case in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
No (was that an intentional reference to her hot sauce in her bag comment on the same show?). Not just the pollsters That's the beauty of giving probability predictions of one-time events. You can't be wrong.
The Biden was "being real" spin is one of the most comical since he's literally had to drop out of a previous race for lying and has been demonstrated as lying about stuff like getting arrested meeting Nelson Mandela and working in the civil rights movement. Lies he's told this cycle.
The "return to decency" narrative of Biden's campaign is problematic on a lot of fronts really.
Biden having a strangely entitled view on his race platform while bending the truth constantly is him "being real" just as Trump making fun of people with disabilities and saying discombobulated inarticulate things is him "being real." Doing a bad job of pretending to care about a particular policy point (in an identifiable manner) is not the prominent indicator that many believe imo.
In the Carlin sense I'd agree, but also find it tragically comical for it to be paired with a "return to decency" and "restoring the soul of America" campaign.
One problem of the "it's like Trump" excuse is that it undermines the aforementioned campaign based on being not-Trump. The truth is the soul of America he wants to restore and the greatness Trump wanted to return to are awfully similar imaginary/delusional concepts imo.
On May 23 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote: People catch Biden's "You ain't Black!" interview with Charlamagne tha God yet?
Yeah and he slam dunked it. People pretending this is something to whine about are being completely ridiculous. Everyone knows what he meant and his pearl grasping I am seeing on Twitter is the biggest ass pull ever
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially the case in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
No (was that an intentional reference to her hot sauce in her bag comment on the same show?). Not just the pollsters That's the beauty of giving probability predictions of one-time events. You can't be wrong.
The Biden was "being real" spin is one of the most comical since he's literally had to drop out of a previous race for lying and has been demonstrated as lying about stuff like getting arrested meeting Nelson Mandela and working in the civil rights movement. Lies he's told this cycle.
The "return to decency" narrative of Biden's campaign is problematic on a lot of fronts really.
Biden having a strangely entitled view on his race platform while bending the truth constantly is him "being real" just as Trump making fun of people with disabilities and saying discombobulated inarticulate things is him "being real." Doing a bad job of pretending to care about a particular policy point (in an identifiable manner) is not the prominent indicator that many believe imo.
The truth is the soul of America he wants to restore and the greatness Trump wanted to return to are awfully similar imaginary/delusional concepts imo.
I agree, but I'm not sure any of that really matters.
On May 23 2020 07:36 cLutZ wrote: Didn't Charlamagne have a weird controversial interview with Warren too? Seems to me that Democrats should avoid his program if they are expecting a softball interview, even though that was an unforced error by Joe.
OFC, this is a problem all the time for Dems when they venture into the podcast world, or anything outside center-left corporate media. That's just a foreseeable downside to not being challenged enough. Trial by fire, as they say.
I wouldn't say all of the Dems. Yang and Bernie did a pretty good job with Rogan and other podcasts. It's just that people like Biden, Warren, and Harris etc aren't meant for that platform. They're better in-person or through video clips. Them on a podcast is just inviting danger.
I still think Yang gave one of the best interviews on a podcast with Rogan (Bernie a very close second).
Yang and Bernie get attacked by the same media all the time, which is why they are actually able to hold up in the nontraditional format. I'd say Yang was much much better than Bernie on Rogan though. Bernie just Bernies through every question, which pushes you to the limit in that format as well.
I just disagree with your statement they are better in-person or in clips. They are better when they aren't being challenged. That's why they can't even make something milquetoast like Chris Wallace work if he's feeling slightly grumpy.
On May 23 2020 07:36 cLutZ wrote: Didn't Charlamagne have a weird controversial interview with Warren too? Seems to me that Democrats should avoid his program if they are expecting a softball interview, even though that was an unforced error by Joe.
OFC, this is a problem all the time for Dems when they venture into the podcast world, or anything outside center-left corporate media. That's just a foreseeable downside to not being challenged enough. Trial by fire, as they say.
I wouldn't say all of the Dems. Yang and Bernie did a pretty good job with Rogan and other podcasts. It's just that people like Biden, Warren, and Harris etc aren't meant for that platform. They're better in-person or through video clips. Them on a podcast is just inviting danger.
I still think Yang gave one of the best interviews on a podcast with Rogan (Bernie a very close second).
Yang and Bernie get attacked by the same media all the time, which is why they are actually able to hold up in the nontraditional format. I'd say Yang was much much better than Bernie on Rogan though. Bernie just Bernies through every question, which pushes you to the limit in that format as well.
I just disagree with your statement they are better in-person or in clips. They are better when they aren't being challenged. That's why they can't even make something milquetoast like Chris Wallace work if he's feeling slightly grumpy.
If you looked at the debates, which was a mess and really a clown show, they did better in person. Not being challenged is another thing that anyone would do better at if you think about it. And I think the people I mentioned are more worried about impressions than getting a point across. Bernie and Yang yeeted that perception and it gained them a decently sized following. I see Yang coming back in 4 years and making a strong case. Warren, Biden, and Bernie are done with presidential bids. They'd be too old and inviting the same crits that Biden is getting now.
Which probably won't matter as america is probably circling the drain in 2-3 years anyway.
On May 23 2020 07:21 farvacola wrote: The majority of (black) voters wont even know this interview happened come voting day, but I get that you want to push and pull on the language of certainty in line with your ideological goals, so go for it.
It's already went around pretty quickly (trending of course) and I couched everything in probably/likelihood so the "language of certainty" critique doesn't seem applicable.
That said, the majority of Black voters under ~40 will likely know about this interview, and majority or not, it will likely lessen his Black turnout since he thought he could just point to his (awful) record and tell them their choices are voting for him or they aren't Black.
You do see that what you say tracks closely with the "Hilary still has this in the bag" demographic game playing that deluded Dem pollsters until the results of '16 hit? If the attention of black voters under 40 were so easily predictively captured by a damaging statement said at an interview that took place around 6 months before a general election, Donald Trump *probably* wouldn't have won in 2016.
The default for the vast majority of events is "little to no effect" and the sliver of events that have legitimate electoral gravity are what pundits fight over tooth and nail for months on end. This is especially the case in the times of a Trump presidency. As controversial as it is to suggest, I think a case can be made that Biden's chances are actually improved by him "being real," even if that means he says stupid uncle cracker shit.
No (was that an intentional reference to her hot sauce in her bag comment on the same show?). Not just the pollsters That's the beauty of giving probability predictions of one-time events. You can't be wrong.
The Biden was "being real" spin is one of the most comical since he's literally had to drop out of a previous race for lying and has been demonstrated as lying about stuff like getting arrested meeting Nelson Mandela and working in the civil rights movement. Lies he's told this cycle.
The "return to decency" narrative of Biden's campaign is problematic on a lot of fronts really.
Biden having a strangely entitled view on his race platform while bending the truth constantly is him "being real" just as Trump making fun of people with disabilities and saying discombobulated inarticulate things is him "being real." Doing a bad job of pretending to care about a particular policy point (in an identifiable manner) is not the prominent indicator that many believe imo.
The truth is the soul of America he wants to restore and the greatness Trump wanted to return to are awfully similar imaginary/delusional concepts imo.
I agree, but I'm not sure any of that really matters.
That overlap is critically important when it comes to policy/political philosophy imo. Electorally it might not, but considering the margins last election, even if it's .01% (in the right/wrong places), that could be enough. Especially in places like Detroit and Flint where he needs a high turnout from Black voters. That it might not matter electorally reflects very poorly on the party and political system at large though either way imo.
On May 23 2020 07:36 cLutZ wrote: Didn't Charlamagne have a weird controversial interview with Warren too? Seems to me that Democrats should avoid his program if they are expecting a softball interview, even though that was an unforced error by Joe.
OFC, this is a problem all the time for Dems when they venture into the podcast world, or anything outside center-left corporate media. That's just a foreseeable downside to not being challenged enough. Trial by fire, as they say.
I wouldn't say all of the Dems. Yang and Bernie did a pretty good job with Rogan and other podcasts. It's just that people like Biden, Warren, and Harris etc aren't meant for that platform. They're better in-person or through video clips. Them on a podcast is just inviting danger.
I still think Yang gave one of the best interviews on a podcast with Rogan (Bernie a very close second).
Yang and Bernie get attacked by the same media all the time, which is why they are actually able to hold up in the nontraditional format. I'd say Yang was much much better than Bernie on Rogan though. Bernie just Bernies through every question, which pushes you to the limit in that format as well.
I just disagree with your statement they are better in-person or in clips. They are better when they aren't being challenged. That's why they can't even make something milquetoast like Chris Wallace work if he's feeling slightly grumpy.
They buckled every time they got pressed a fraction as much as Bernie or Yang does/did on "friendly" networks. Yang actually taking Democrats to court over them trying to suppress voters is going to play well in his future. Shame he's just trying to herd people over to libertarianism.
If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap (I'm Hispanic). While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record.
Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record. Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here. May I ask if you agree with my description if self-loathing minorities? I have significantly less experience with black people compared to Hispanics, but I feel like I have seen the very same dynamic clear as day many times.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
If Trump really wants to blow the lid off this thing, he should say if you're really debating between voting for Trump or Biden, you're not really white. It would be such an epic troll. Because, as Mohdoo knows, this is an actual position held by some segment of Americans, maybe laid out a little less artfully than preferred.
Yeah, only black people who basically are "self loathing minorities" would vote Trump. Hispanics voting for Trump are "generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity."
Come to the Republican party. Whatever your race, we will actually listen to and understand your voting choice. For the Democrats, well, they'll just assume you're a racial sell-out, some kind of victim acting out, basically a psychological basket case embracing your abusers. Oh they'll listen and nod, but afterwards, they'll go back chuckling about how "deeply religious" you are, or "not caring for [your] fellow man" or "resentful of their race." Hoo-boy, this country right now.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record. Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here.
Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration:
This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy.
May I ask if you agree with my description if self-loathing minorities? I have significantly less experience with black people compared to Hispanics, but I feel like I have seen the very same dynamic clear as day many times.
I'd describe it as the same kind of cynicism that perpetuates the party. It's good for one's career in most fields to be willing to ignore racism and white people have made it abundantly clear since MLK and Baldwin (Biden's record and this comment falls squarely in this theme) they know the horrors racism inflicts across this country and beyond, they are just unwilling to correct them.
Given that reality, it's almost masochistic to be a Black Democrat as much or more so than to be a Black Republican. At least as a Black Republican you get preferential treatment and tons of career advancement opportunities as long as you tow the line. Democrats just expect you to (despite it also being detrimental to your communities) and tell you to leave/vote for the other guy if you don't like it.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record. Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here.
Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration:
This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy.
I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record. Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here.
Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration:
This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy.
I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down.
This is reminiscent of your ranting about how Russia tricked Black people in 2016. The idea that these people don't have a right to expect policy that reflects the needs of their community before voting for the "not-Republican" candidate is the racist position imo.
On May 23 2020 12:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Biden told someone they weren’t Hispanic if they are considering voting for Trump, I’d clap. While there are a lot of non Mexican Hispanics who vote for trump because they are racist towards Mexicans, they are generally the type trying to pretend they are white and feel shame for their ethnicity. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
The entire idea of self loathing minorities is a very real thing. It is a way to escape the anxiety and shame that comes from living among racism for so long. You start to try to convince yourself you’re different from what people are racist against. Some of them go on to resent poor minorities. It’s incredibly sad and a direct result of living a life as a victim of racism. The same also happens to black people. Choosing not to vote for Biden doesn’t make you not Hispanic, but voting for trump is a direct assault on your own people and I can’t explain that away. They are either deeply religious to the point of not caring for their fellow man or resentful of their race. I’ve seen it more than I care for.
If Biden said this about Hispanics, he’d be 100% right, in terms of what he actually meant. Clearly he was not disputing the genetics of the dude he was talking to lol
I'd suggest thinking it would be acceptable for Biden to say it is internalized racism which is what you're describing would motivate Black and Hispanic people to vote for Trump.
It's important to note this was in response to having more questions to ask him at a future unscheduled interview about what he was offering Black communities. So I see it as "you ain't getting shit, you have no choice but to vote for me" basically. Which matches what he said in response to joining the Democratic party voters to support medicare for all on CNBC and during his campaign when confronted on his atrocious immigration record. Basically told people if you don't like his shitty policy/record/responses they should vote for Trump because he's going to be Joe Biden whether voters like it or not.
No, that is clearly not what he meant. I'm not going to pretend that is a valid interpretation. I think you know you're grasping here.
Not grasping, he literally said it to a voter confronting him on the gap between his rhetoric and his record on immigration:
This "you ain't Black" response has the same energy.
I’m 100% on board with the way he handled that. Dude was an idiot. I want someone who tells idiots they are idiots. Regardless of delivery or poor wording and all the various things that suck about Biden,I want someone who tells idiots, whether they are voters or not, to go fuck themselves. It’s like the women who hijacked bernies speech. Fools. They don’t deserve a podium. Tell them to shut up and sit down.
This is reminiscent of your ranting about how Russia tricked Black people in 2016. The idea that these people don't have a right to expect policy that reflects the needs of their community before voting for the not-Republican" candidate is the racist position imo.
They aren't idiots because they want policies that I also want. They are idiots because they plan their day around making a huge fuss and destroying their own voice by shooting their credibility in the head. No one cared what that guy had to say because he presented himself as a joke. Same with the women who interrupted Bernie. It was cringey and stupid. I don't even remember what they said and he gave them the podium. They have every right to want the same policies that I want, but they don't have the right to be belligerent idiots. I want full amnesty for all immigrants and billions injected into mental health programs rather than deporting or imprisoning undocumented immigrants who are criminals. While I do want those mental health programs to be 100% mandatory and to take away their personhood until they are decent people, I don't see value in dumping them at the border and I want our country to spend money helping them.
Despite all of that, the guy in the video is an idiot. Biden shutting him down was excellent for me, as a Hispanic guy who wants full amnesty.
Edit: I also want to be clear that I think making a ruckus is really good in a variety of situations. HK protests, MLK protests, certain forms of eco-terrorism, most protests are things that I think are A+ and 100% good. But it is really hard to do as an individual. I think that when people put themselves in those situations they end up breaking down and having panic attacks and it goes really poorly. That, in my eyes, is what happened in the two cases I am describing. Make a ruckus, shut down traffic, but do it well. They didn't do it well. Their timing was poor and their delivery was poor. They all hurt their causes and they needed to shut up.
EPT
