Monday, July 18, 2022
Congress
Lately we've been seeing an ad for a guy runing for congress. He's a black guy, who points out his background, and basically is focusing on two points in this ad. It seems that the two most important issues this guy sees are a lack of "green jobs", and not enough abortions. I could be wrong, but in a world of hideously bad inflation, grocery and drug store shelves that have big empty spots, a city that still hasn't built back from riots, black kids being killed by black adults in black neighborhoods, and the like, it doesn't seem like "green jobs" and propogating Margaret Snager's racist philosophies is a winning strategy. Unfortunately, he's likely to get is high % of black DFL voters simply becuase he checks some demographic boxes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
"stupid black people" should really listen to your white ass.
Good Lord.
What a strange comment. Are you really suggesting that the most important issues for the residents of an urban congressional district are "green energy jobs", and unrestricted abortion?
My post was more about the ineptitude of the candidate and his team than about those who might vote for him. It's also a commentary on the lack of issues the DFL has to run on.
The fact that an increase of abortions in an urban congressional district helps further Margaret Sanger's goals is just an interesting coincidence.
But hey, if you think that these two issues are more important than things like inflation and shortages of basic necessities, that's cool. Let's see how that works.
Unless this candidate is counting on the fact that his skin color, and the historic voting patters of urban districts/POC will allow him to win no matter what he runs on.
Either way, your default to calling people racist, or inferring racism is as tiresome as it is false.
I don't see how the color of your ass has any relevance to the truth of your implications. It's astounding that such a champion of the black community as Dan is would not see the problem of the candidate in question focusing on such insignificant issues at a time like this...when so many in the black community are suffering so badly from the consequences of leftist ideology. Too many in that community (as for so many others as well) were struggling to get by as it was before Dan's preferred candidates beat out proven entities. And now Dan dares get pissy about your wonderment? That's so Dan. What a clown!
You'll note Dan's strategy of calling me racist, then disappearing, is quite effective.
Craig... "your default to calling people racist, or inferring racism is as tiresome as it is false."
Look, you can ignore that your words are patronizing and demeaning of African Americans if you want. I'm not calling you a racist. I'm telling you that speaking in such patronizing manner is a racist thing to do.
You can do with that what you will.
Re: Green jobs are jobs that can and will help the black community. If you were more plugged into black communities, you would be aware that the impact of climate change and pollution in general has a larger and more negative impact on impoverished black communities than it does on privileged/more affluent white communities. It is in the interest of black communities to see policies that make for a greener - read HEALTHIER and less toxic neighborhoods - for black people.
If you listened to black communities, you'd know that sickness and cancer and COVID and other illnesses have an over-sized impact on poorer/more black communities. They are being wise and acting in rational self-interest to want to see more green jobs. THAT is what I would read into the words of this black candidate that you're trying to belittle and stigmatize as dumb and uninformed.
AND, the other thing is, we can do more than one thing at a time. We can work on trying to improve the inflation costs WHILE pushing for more green jobs. It's not an either/or scenario.
But go ahead, try and belittle another black candidate. I'm just letting you know how racist that comes across.
It's not a good look for white folk.
Also, it's a stupidly stupidly racistly dishonest way to say that he supports a woman's right to make her medical decisions as he thinks "there are not enough abortions.
Be honest. He never said one single thing like that, did he? It's a damned lie, is it not?
The problem with your hellish false witness is that it portrays this black man as a monster. This is what racists have historically done. Are you not aware of this?
Marshal...
"focusing on such insignificant issues at a time like this."
It's quite amazing the great devotion to anti reason, anti science positions that the modern conservative movement has embraced.
Our world is literally on fire due in part to climate change. Scientists are telling us that there's hardly any more important policy matter then climate change for us to deal with. But you two think it's a waste of time and insignificant? ?
And women and their allies are outraged at being designated as second class citizens by a bunch of old conservative white men like y'all. As if your outside opinion is more important than their own on their own Health Matters!!
These are human rights and survival issues. And yet you all find them insignificant!!?
Set aside how stupid all that is, can you just not even understand how stupid it appears? How privileged and unconcerned? How offensive from a human rights point of view?
Let them eat cake. As long as we get to decide the flavor.
"I'm telling you that speaking in such patronizing manner is a racist thing to do."
1. I was unaware that you had the authority to make these sort of pronouncements.
2. If you think that misinterpreting or twisting my words is acceptable, then I see no reason to take you seriously as the arbiter of anything.
"Green jobs are jobs that can and will help the black community. If you were more plugged into black communities, you would be aware that the impact of climate change and pollution in general has a larger and more negative impact on impoverished black communities than it does on privileged/more affluent white communities. It is in the interest of black communities to see policies that make for a greener - read HEALTHIER and less toxic neighborhoods - for black people."
In a broad, general sense, you are not wrong. The problem is that these theoretical, future green jobs don't solve the immediate concerns of urban communities.
It's interesting that you assume that "urban communities" somehow means "black". Maybe in your southern, smaller city that might be True. Up here, it's less so and very much dependent on location.
I guess I'd argue that black adults selling drugs to black kids, or black adults shooting black kids, would be a significantly less toxic environment as well. Since that's what we see on the local news, it seems like a bigger, more immediate concern. Strangely enough, when you try to defund and demonize the police, crime you see fewer police and more crime.
"THAT is what I would read into the words of this black candidate that you're trying to belittle and stigmatize as dumb and uninformed."
Of course you're going to read all sorts of things into this candidate's ad that aren't there, it's what you do. Of course you aren't going to prove your claim, because you virtually never prove your claims.
"AND, the other thing is, we can do more than one thing at a time. We can work on trying to improve the inflation costs WHILE pushing for more green jobs. It's not an either/or scenario."
Theoretically, that's true. Realistically, the only institution who's trying to deal with inflation is the Fed, and they're likely to over correct because they only have one tool and a history of over correction. Of course, in this ad, there's no mention of inflation or shortages, just "green jobs" and abortion.
"But go ahead, try and belittle another black candidate. I'm just letting you know how racist that comes across."
How interesting. Pointing out that this one particular candidate (and his entire team) made a tactical error, or chose to try to shift the focus away from the most pressing concerns, is somehow to "belittle" him. I always thought that political candidates were fair game for legitimate criticism over policy and public statements. I guess Dan doesn't think that black, liberal, candidates should be criticized at all. Strange since Dan unleashes all sorts of vitriol on black conservatives (although he's not as vitriolic or racist as many on the left).
"It's not a good look for white folk."
Once again, the reversion to the broad brush. Because it's easier not to deal with individuals when you can demean entire groups.
"Also, it's a stupidly stupidly racistly dishonest way to say that he supports a woman's right to make her medical decisions as he thinks "there are not enough abortions."
Given the reality that the current position of the APL and the DFL (and you individually) is that abortions should be unrestricted. If restrictions on abortion are removed, then it seems logical to conclude that less restrictions would equal more abortions. Given the abortion stats in the black community, it's also not inaccurate to say that Margaret Sanger (an icon of the APL and the DFL) would be pleased with those statistics. Of course, it's interesting to hear you tell us what this guy said, and meant, when you likely haven't actually heard what he said.
"Be honest. He never said one single thing like that, did he? It's a damned lie, is it not?"
Honestly, I haven't heard everything he's said on the topic (nor have you) and so can't really answer your question. However, by pointing out the current push for "unrestricted" abortion, it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that (as in virtually every other area) less restriction equals more of the behavior that was restricted.
"The problem with your hellish false witness is that it portrays this black man as a monster. This is what racists have historically done. Are you not aware of this?"
Actually, the entirety of the above quote is literally, factually, and completely false. Lying to protest "false witness" is like f*****g to protect virginity.
I literally criticized one campaign ad for focusing on two issues that polling suggests are NOT high priorities for the electorate, and now I'm the personification of evil.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412
Well I can't evaluate this man's commercial because you just made a vague accusation against someone that you specified as a black candidate. Why did his race play into your post? Why not provide the link to the commercial you're talking about?
Again, in the real world, white men have a history of demonizing and making monsters of black men by vague generalized attacks and accusations against "those dangerous and dumb black men." This is just another modern version of that... or at least comes across that way. That's what I hear from my black friends and black writers that I read.
Craig...
"restrictions on abortion are removed, then it seems logical to conclude that less restrictions would equal more abortions."
Stop it. Just stop it. It's a stupidly ugly false claim. It's not even a clever or believable false claim. Is just a dumb unsupported false claim of the sort that the modern GOP has so thoroughly embraced. Just stop it.
Stop trying to defend your stupidly false claim. Admit it's a stupidly false claim. Humble yourself, little man.
You mispoke. You made a stupidly false claim. You made a mistake. Just admit it.
"Well I can't evaluate this man's commercial because you just made a vague accusation against someone that you specified as a black candidate."
Actually, I made the very specific and truthful claim that his commercial focused on tow specific issues.
Why did his race play into your post?"
I pointed out the race of the candidate because he's a black liberal running in an urban district, and is likely to win the general election based on those two factors alone.
"Why not provide the link to the commercial you're talking about?"
Because I was making a general point about how liberals are focusing on tertiary issues instead of the issues that are more pressing in the real lives of their potential constituents. I was using this one commercial as an example of my actual point. I was also unaware that you would choose to "read into" this commercial all sorts of fantasies that you just pulled out of your ass and pretended that your bullshit was factual.
"Again, in the real world, white men have a history of demonizing and making monsters of black men by vague generalized attacks and accusations against "those dangerous and dumb black men." This is just another modern version of that... or at least comes across that way. That's what I hear from my black friends and black writers that I read."
Again, with the attempt to condemn the individual by citing some vague, unsupported, general, blather about what some other people have hypothetically done. Of course, much like the ad in question, it's a great way to take the focus off of the dismal economy, shortages of consumer goods, and the like.
Strange that you have no problem demonizing people (of all races) based on things that others may have done.
This is where you betray your lack of understanding about the concerns of black people. According to polls, People of color have a great concern about climate change matters. And about having good green jobs...
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/race-and-climate-change/
And again, according to polls, black people are concerned about keeping abortion legal and not denying rights to women and specifically women of color. They know from remember what it's like to be denied rights and made 2nd class citizens and they don't want that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Listen to black voices.
"Stop it. Just stop it. It's a stupidly ugly false claim. It's not even a clever or believable false claim. Is just a dumb unsupported false claim of the sort that the modern GOP has so thoroughly embraced. Just stop it."
Interesting choice. Absolutely zero attempt to dent that the goal of the APL and DFL is unrestricted abortion. Absolutely zero attempt to provide one instance where the removal of restrictions on a behavior has not resulted in an increase in that behavior. Just unsupported claims, repeated because repetition makes bullshit True.
"Stop trying to defend your stupidly false claim. Admit it's a stupidly false claim. Humble yourself, little man."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, personal attacks. From someone who's the antithesis of humble, that's quite amusing.
"You mispoke. You made a stupidly false claim. You made a mistake. Just admit it."
If you can't prove my claim false, why should I admit anything.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/recreational-cannabis-legalization-leads-higher-use-some-demographics
Removing restrictions on weed, led to more weed use.
Since you just made the unsupported claim that removing restrictions does not lead to an increase in the restricted behavior, all I really needed was one example.
Although, as we're seeing in cities like SF, when you remove restrictions on certain crimes (ie choose not to prosecute certain crimes) those crimes increase.
https://cis.org/Report/Estimating-Illegal-Immigrant-Population-Using-Current-Population-Survey
Strangely enough, illegal immigration numbers increased when Biden lifted restrictions on immigration.
Again, excellent job of moving the comment thread away from the point of the post so rapidly, very impressive.
"This is where you betray your lack of understanding about the concerns of black people. According to polls, People of color have a great concern about climate change matters. And about having good green jobs...
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/race-and-climate-change/"
Yes, because your poll from an affinity group that leans toward one side of the climate change agenda, is more valid than my ABC news. But in reality none of that really matters, because I didn't say that either of these issues was not important at all, just that they might not be the most important issues to focus on given the other more pressing issues we're dealing with. But if misrepresenting what I actually said is the best you have, why are you wasting your time?
"And again, according to polls, black people are concerned about keeping abortion legal and not denying rights to women and specifically women of color. They know from remember what it's like to be denied rights and made 2nd class citizens and they don't want that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/"
And again, I never actually said that this was unimportant. Given the fact that black mothers kill their unborn children at a much higher rate than other demographic groups, it's clearly important to some degree. But again, according to ABC news polling (which is representative or other similar polling), abortion is at best a secondary issue. Again, if y'all think that the best way to get urban voters to the polls is to tout some vague, non specific promise of "green jobs") at some point in the distant future and unrestricted abortion, go right ahead?
"Listen to black voices."
Since you don't listen to any voices closely enough to accurately represent what people have actually said, this strikes me as amusing. Especially given the fact that I regularly post all sorts of black voices here at my blog.
I'm curious. Given the well documented, dismal performance of black students in the urban school districts in the Twin Cities, (despite some of the highest per pupil funding in the state), what kinds of "green jobs" will high school graduates who don;t read or do math at grade level be qualified for?
Craig...
"Absolutely zero attempt to dent that the goal of the APL and DFL is unrestricted abortion. Absolutely zero attempt to provide one instance where the removal of restrictions on a behavior has not resulted in an increase in that behavior."
Don't be daft. Don't. Stop it. What in the heck is wrong with you? Stop it.
That we want people to have the right to make their OWN medical choices is not an indication that we support more abortion. Read that again. That we support people having the right to make their own g****** medical decisions and getting preachers and perverts like you all OUT of their important decisions in lives is not an indication that we want to see more abortions.
Period.
Good Lord. What is wrong with you?
Presumably you support people having the right to own guns, right? That must mean, by your logic, that you support more people being gunned down. That is foolish. Shame on you. Stop it. You're not this stupid. Stop acting like it.
I Repeat the reality again: you made a stupidly false claim and you were caught in it. Just admit it and apologize and move on. Be an adult.
"Given the fact that black mothers kill their unborn children at a much higher rate than other demographic groups, it's clearly important to some degree"
So you're saying black women are killers, baby killer's? Or at least at a greater rate than white women? So I guess you think black women are pretty evil then, is that what you're saying?
what kinds of "green jobs" will high school graduates who don;t read or do math at grade level be qualified for?
Jobs in green industry include a wide range of positions, not all of which require a college your education. But then, I'm not one that's inclined to think that black people are stupid and not able to do such jobs or learn such work. Maybe I'm different than you on that front.
You keep bringing this topic up as if you think that black students always do worse than white students. of course, schools in predominantly conservative States are the ones that tend to do the worst, and it usually has something more to do with poverty level than race. Of course.
Still zero attempt to deny that the goal of the APL and DFL is unrestricted abortion.
"Good Lord. What is wrong with you?"
Nothing. When I hear the majority of vocal leftists advocating unrestricted abortion, when I see academics argue for abortion up to 3 years post birth, and legislation advanced that opens the door for post birth abortion, I merely take those people at their word. (Obviously when I use the word "unrestricted" that includes other similar terms as well. "No restrictions", "unfettered", etc)
"Presumably you support people having the right to own guns, right?"
It's plainly in the constitution, and had been upheld by SCOTUS multiple times, so sure.
"That must mean, by your logic, that you support more people being gunned down. That is foolish. Shame on you. Stop it. You're not this stupid. Stop acting like it."
If you weren't twisting my words to make it seem as if I'm saying something else, this might make sense. What I'm actually saying is that removing restrictions on activity X virtually always means an increase in activity X. I'm also hearing people on the left becoming more and more vocal about how abortion is a wonderfully good thing, something to be celebrated, etc. Again, when advertising portrays something as worthy of celebration, it most likely will involve an increase in what's being celebrated.
You probably think that the passage of Roe didn't increase the number of abortions.
"I Repeat the reality again: you made a stupidly false claim and you were caught in it. Just admit it and apologize and move on. Be an adult."
If you can't prove this alleged claim is false, then stop pretending like it is.
"So you're saying black women are killers, baby killer's?"
No. I'm saying that the statistical data tells us that black women terminate the lives of their unborn children at a higher rate than other demographic groups. Obviously, I'm not broad brushing all black women by the actions of a subset of black women. I'm simply acknowledging the data. Hell, in NYC it was more likely for a black child to be aborted than born. Look at the data.
"Or at least at a greater rate than white women?"
The data shows that black women abort at a higher rate than other demographic groups.
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture
"This much is true: In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women."
Guttmacher is literally funded/owned by PP, if they acknowledge this fact as True, then you probably should as well.
"So I guess you think black women are pretty evil then, is that what you're saying?"
No. I'm saying that black women terminate the lives of their children at 5x the rate of white women, per Guttmacher. The numbers are "True" according to Guttmacher, the only argument is how you spin those numbers to try to justify the True statistical data. Margaret would be so proud.
"Jobs in green industry include a wide range of positions, not all of which require a college your education. But then, I'm not one that's inclined to think that black people are stupid and not able to do such jobs or learn such work. Maybe I'm different than you on that front."
Since this didn't answer the question I asked, I see no reason to dignify it with a substantive response.
"You keep bringing this topic up as if you think that black students always do worse than white students."
Actually, I keep bringing this up because the data, based on actual students in actual urban districts (you'll note that I did NOT specify "black" students. But specifically referred to students in urban districts. Altoough I didn't specify this, it should be clear that (because the ad is a local ad aimed at local voters) that I'm really specifically looking at the three mostly urban districts in the area where the as is running) So, yes I do keep bringing up the empirical data because it's relevant. An 18 year old who reads at a 10th grade level,and does math at an 8th grade level, is going to have many less "green job" options than someone who graduated with grade level proficiency in core subjects.
"of course, schools in predominantly conservative States are the ones that tend to do the worst, and it usually has something more to do with poverty level than race. Of course."
But we're not talking about nation wide, we're talking about those in the media market where the specific ad is running.
You bring up an interesting, but off topic point, though. If you look at the data that compares poor whites, to other demographic groups (especially rural poor whites), you see evidence that much of what is portrayed as division by "race" is potentially division by class.
Because this is off topic, I will not entertain any comments on the subject. If you revert to type and comment on the subject, I might choose to be charitable and publish your comments elsewhere, although that does seem to be rewarding your inability to follow directions.
But all in all, a really excellent job of throwing bullshit up against the walls and asking questions that attempt to make it appear that I hold opinions that I do not hold. It's impressive that you've chosen to ignore my specificity, and to try to pretend as if I was applying data from a subset of people to entire demographics.
Dan likes to pretend he's noble when he re-frames abortion as a woman's right to make her own medical decisions as if abortion is no more a choice than liposuction or a nose-job. The "medical choices" argument is an abject lie.
Abortion is a clear and unmitigated evil, so what does that say about the character of women (and their men) who seek to protect the practice against being outlawed? I'd say it kinda makes the evil, or demonstrates evil flowing through them in order to pretend they have an actual need to abort, which is never true.
Once again we see Dan's struggles with analogies. Guns rights means fewer gun deaths, not more. Those of us who do not live with our heads up our asses know defending the 2nd does NOT result in more gun deaths, while allowing abortion has indeed resulted in more abortions than would otherwise have ever taken place.
Art,
I agree that Dan likes to present himself as noble, and I'll even grant that this issue is about women's choices. The problem is, regardless of how Dan sees himself, the rest of the pro abortion crowd is pushing for unrestricted abortion and treating abortion as something to be celebrated. Dan thinks that his fantasy of what it means to be progressive is reality and that he really does speak for the progressive movement.
Yes abortion is horrible and the harm it does to the unborn, the mothers, the family, and society is not taken into account in this discussion. The documented health risks of abortion (mental health, and cancer) are ignored, and fathers are marginalized even more. The problem is that the pro abortion folks only care about 1 choice, the choose to abort, all the other choices are (again) ignored.
The reality is that less restriction on abortion, virtually guarantees more abortions.
Marshal...
"
Marshal...
"Abortion is a clear and unmitigated evil,.."
This is a religious opinion that SOME people hold. If you are in a religion or a belief system that believes this, then you should not have an abortion.
But here is the key point:
Not every religion and belief systems agrees with yours. You can't force your religious opinions on other people. You can't do that period that's morally and philosophically wrong, is an abuse of human rights. It is, therefore, evil. You can't force your religious fascism on other people. Keep it to yourself.
You want a great evil? Religious fascism is a great and diabolical evil.
Craig lied. Again.
"the rest of the pro abortion crowd is pushing for unrestricted abortion and treating abortion as something to be celebrated."
We support WOMEN having the unrestricted choice to make decisions for themselves as it relates to their body and pregnancies.
We support MEN having the unrestricted choice to make THEIR medical decisions for themselves.
We support people having the liberty to, you know, be self-determining WITHOUT some religious zealot trying to push his views onto them. We are opposed to religio-fascism.
That is not the same as saying we are pushing for unrestricted abortion, with the emphasis on abortions, as if we want to see endless abortions. THAT is a stupidly false claim. We just want people - women included - to have the freedom to be self-determining. And THAT is something to be celebrated and the removal of those rights from women something to be opposed, as well as the forcing of one set of religio-fascists' views on everyone by law.
We are opposed to criminalizing abortion and putting women and doctors in prison for merely making their own best medical decisions, IN SPITE of what some religious zealots may want.
We are opposed to forcing a raped 10 year old to have a baby in spite of what their doctors and families may think is best.
We are opposed to religious zealots like Marshal forcing this baby upon this child.
Shame on both of you for trying to force your religious views on other people and denying basic human rights.
Shame.
And if you want fewer abortions, support better and more accessible medical advice and supplies and sexual education for all people. THAT is what reduces abortion. If conservatives want to see actual change, that's the righteous place to start.
Another damned lie:
"The problem is that the pro abortion folks only care about 1 choice, the choose to abort..."
You can't prove this because it is another of the endless stream of stupidly false claims that cowards make in attempt to force their religio-fascism off on a people who should be free of that attack upon human rights.
Stop it. Be better than this, boys.
Tell me, Craig: Many people - Many Jewish people, for instance - just don't agree with your religious opinion that a fetus has human rights or even a soul. On what rational basis does YOUR religion get to decide what those who don't share your religious hunches must do?
Why is that not an assault on religious liberty?
You all claim to be advocates for religious liberty, but what you show is you want religious liberty FOR YOU and people who agree with you and to hell with everyone else. Do you not see this?
Just to review your post and what YOU have said.
"Lately we've been seeing an ad for a guy runing for congress. He's a black guy, who points out his background, and basically is focusing on two points in this ad."
So, he's specifically a black guy that you've noted is running for office. And in this ONE ad, he didn't focus on all the potential problems. He only focused on two that are very important to black people and other rational people in his community.
You find that strange that, in this ONE ad, he wouldn't choose to focus on things that YOU (as a white conservative) think are more important.
Right so far?
"It seems that the two most important issues this guy sees are a lack of "green jobs", and not enough abortions."
You suggested that this candidate who YOU identify as "a black guy" should not have bothered commenting on this ONE ad about green jobs, that to you as a white conservative man, there are more important matters.
Right so far?
AND, you made the stupidly false and unsupported claim that this "black guy" is thinking there are "not enough abortions." No matter that he almost never said this. It's sufficient that you, as a white male conservative, have identified that as what he wants and, as we all know, white male conservatives know best. It's okay to make a stupidly false claim because you, as a white male conservative, no what this "black guy" really wants and that's "more abortions."
Right?
You continued to identify a bunch of problems that are all tied to black people in your post:
"I could be wrong, but in a world of hideously bad inflation, grocery and drug store shelves that have big empty spots, a city that still hasn't built back from riots, black kids being killed by black adults in black neighborhoods, and the like, it doesn't seem like "green jobs" and propogating Margaret Snager's racist philosophies is a winning strategy."
You, as a white male conservative, think this "black guy" who, YOU say (falsely) that he doesn't think there are "enough abortions" AND that he wants to support "Margaret Snager [sic] racist philosophies." Says you. With no support and in spite of the fact that it's a stupidly false claim. As if this "black guy" wants to support racist philosophies.
You conclude with...
"Unfortunately, he's likely to get is high % of black DFL voters simply becuase he checks some demographic boxes."
Because black people are only going to vote for black candidates, according to you.
And you don't see how all these false claims and attacks and snide remarks and demonization of black people are racist.
Just to keep things straight and on topic.
"Craig lied. Again."
I don't think that Dan ignoring actual legislation proposed by the left, the actual things being said and advocated for by the left, for his rose colored version of him projecting his ideals on a larger group is actually me lying.
I guess the zealots who are advocating unrestricted abortion up to, or past birth< are OK then. It's just the zealots who want to NOT kill unborn children that are the problem.
FYI, the who "forcing the 10 year old" narrative has been shown to be false. OH law would have saved her the sonorous 2 hour drive to kill her unborn child.
I'm confused. Condoms are available at any pharmacy for less that $3.00 each, information about how to use them is literally in the palm of anyone's hand, and they're reasonably effective at preventing pregnancy. If that's too difficult and expensive, then how about one of several free contraceptive methods. Again, all of this information is available one a phone.
Are you suggesting that people are too stupid to do a google search, use a condom, pull out, or exercise self control?
"just don't agree with your religious opinion that a fetus has human rights or even a soul. On what rational basis does YOUR religion get to decide what those who don't share your religious hunches must do?"
I love it when you make something up, attribute it to me, and expect me to support your made up bullshit, straw man, load of crap.
The basics of my position are simple. Science tells us that conception is the beginning of a unique, new, human life. This new human life at it's earliest stages of natural development, has a unique individual DNA, and will under normal circumstances move through every subsequent stage if human life. The US constitutions affirms that the primary right of all humans is the right to life. To argue that the mother somehow has ownership of her unborn child, and can dispose of her property as she wants, hearkens back to an augment used to support slavery. The argument that the unborn child lacks person hood, or is less than human, hearkens back to all sorts of evil ideologies.
But you keep making shit up, it's easier than any of your other options.
"So, he's specifically a black guy that you've noted is running for office. And in this ONE ad, he didn't focus on all the potential problems. He only focused on two"
Yes, I'm relieved that you actually can read and repeat what I've said.
"that are very important to black people and other rational people in his community."
Now we veer into fantasy. In the absence of specific polling of his specific congressional district, you have absolutely zero idea of what's important to the people in "his community". Of course, the national polls, I've referenced don't support your hunches either. Based on what the people in "his community" are the most vocal about, I can conclude that "green jobs" and abortion aren't the top two, but what would I know as opposed to some southern, old, white, liberal yahoo on the internet.
"You find that strange that, in this ONE ad, he wouldn't choose to focus on things that YOU (as a white conservative) think are more important."
No, that would be incorrect.
"Right so far?"
No, you just couldn't keep up after a reasonably good start. The temptation to make shit up, attribute it to me, and demand that I support your made up straw men, is just too great for you to stick with reality. FYI, as someone who actually lives in "his community" it's absurd to think that I (and people of all ethnicities and political stripes) might share the common pain of high prices, empty shelves, and the like.
'You continued to identify a bunch of problems that are all tied to black people in your post:"
Actually I'm pretty sure I specified urban voters, not specifically black people. You do understand that urban voters comprise more than just black people, don't you? Not to mention that everything I mentioned affects everyone to some degree or another. It seems reasonable to conclude that those on the lower end of the economic spectrum might be disproportionately affected by things like inflation, high gas prices, and shortages of basic consumer goods.
"I could be wrong, but in a world of hideously bad inflation, grocery and drug store shelves that have big empty spots, a city that still hasn't built back from riots, black kids being killed by black adults in black neighborhoods, and the like, it doesn't seem like "green jobs" and propogating Margaret Snager's racist philosophies is a winning strategy."
Yes, you managed to copy/paste that accurately.
"You, as a white male conservative, think this "black guy" who, YOU say (falsely) that he doesn't think there are "enough abortions" AND that he wants to support "Margaret Snager [sic] racist philosophies." Says you. With no support and in spite of the fact that it's a stupidly false claim. As if this "black guy" wants to support racist philosophies."
That's quite to job of slightly twisting my words into something that serves your purposes.
1. I don't believe that I specifically said that he specifically "doesn't think there are "enough abortions". Although, increasing access to and removing restrictions on abortions are more likely than not to result in increased abortions.
2. My pointing out that Margaret Snager's explicit goal was to increase abortions in the black community is simply pointing out reality. Statistics and data tell us that black women abort at significantly higher rates than other demographic groups. Science tells us that black women get pregnant with black children, and those who abort at higher rates than other demographic group, therefore abort black children.
3. Given the reality that there have been multiple DFL bills to remove all restrictions on abortion, the likelihood is that any DFL rep will support DFL legislation.
4. It's possible to support legislation and policies that will result in Margaret Sanger's goals being achieved, while not explicitly supporting Sanger's philosophy.
"Unfortunately, he's likely to get is high % of black DFL voters simply becuase he checks some demographic boxes."
"Because black people are only going to vote for black candidates, according to you."
Actually, no. It's according to you, and years of polling data.
"And you don't see how all these false claims and attacks and snide remarks and demonization of black people are racist."
The only one peddling falsehoods in this thread is you. I'm not misrepresenting what others say in order to create straw men. I'm sorry if statistics, data, and reality are such a problem to you.
"Just to keep things straight and on topic."
Yes, because demonizing me is "straight and on topic". As if you are capable of staying on topic.
FYI, the point of the post is that this candidate has to run on "green jobs", and abortion, because those are about the only issues that can be used to demonize the GOP. He can't run against any of the economic issues, because he'd have to blame the current administration. He can run against institutional racism/racist police dept, because all of the local "institutions" have been controlled by the DFL for decades. He can't run on how shitty the education system is because the local teachers unions and school districts are run by the DFL and have high per pupil spending.
So, all he's got left are mythical "green jobs" and decreasing restrictions on abortion.
Dan,
I know that this might be confusing to you, but it's completely reasonable to point out what I believe to be flaws in a political candidate's campaign strategy, without such disagreement being dubbed racist. The only reason I bring up race, is the historical data that you constantly trumpet regarding black voters voting for DFL candidates in large numbers. Because of that, it's completely reasonable to wonder if a black, DFL, candidate in a district with a large enough percentage of black voters will get elected no matter what they run on. Y'all have established, and rely on the LBJ strategy (“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”), as the basis for DFL electoral success. You can't bitch when people wonder if there's anything a DFL candidate (especially a black DFL candidate) can do to lost the black vote.
Trump joked that he could commit murder in plain sight and his supporters would still vote for him. It's not unreasonable to wonder what a DFL candidate would have to do to lose the black vote.
Post a Comment