Who's Identity Politics

I think it's great if the left continues to ignore this issue or even accuse the right of it.

It just means more losses for the left.

 

I see that Democrats learned nothing from their loss. Still calling people who don't share your views vile names...how inclusive of you...

 

Including people based on looks, race, ethnicity, etc is great, but not including people for thinking differently is pretty crappy. The left is much more non inclusive right now, there has been a lot more violence and shutting down of speakers than from that of the right.

 

And what grammatical error is that? Or are you now in over your head?

 

Well, let's see...

Oppose the VRA
Pass laws keeping Black people from voting
Seek out the support of White Nationalists

Then go ask Black people to vote for you?

All your numbers really show is that 55% of White people are willing to accept racist policies as long as their not the ones suffering.

 

You haven't demonstrated a logically sound correlation between the voting pattern of a given demographic and the party for whom it votes level of exclusivity. Rather you have implied such a correlation exists implicitly without presenting any evidence to back up the assertion.

I find it hilarious that you would try to "dumb it down" before at least attempting to demonstrate such a link exists.

 

Actually it is exactly the topic. You and your fellow conformists are the ones who drive the so-called identity politics. If it wasn't for conservative transgressions, liberals wouldn't have to defend.

Put it this. Say a bully keeps pushing down small kids that wear glasses. The problem is not the small kids with glasses. The problem is the bully.

 

I think I told you this before.

I don't consider the adjective "Marxist" to mean someone is bad. It is not a perjorative. It is a description, like a "blue" dog.

It merely describes the economic policies one wants to implement.

That doesn't make those policies evil, just WRONG!

If you consider the term Marxist to be a perjorative then it is *YOUR* problem, not mine. And it is also a pretty good indicator that you don't know what Marxism is.

 

Republicans believe that all people should have to show ID in order to vote. Democrats believe that having to show ID to vote is an affront to black people, presumably because Democrats believe that blacks are less capable of overcoming the same obstacle put in front of everyone.

Which side in the above example is playing identity politics?

 

Wait a minute. When a minority votes 90% one way that *is* good evidence of a link. A *causal* link. If it just happened a few time it might be different. But it's been that way for almost three decades. That's too coincidental to be a coincidence as Yogi Berra said.

 

This may be hard for you to understand, but the so-called conservative speakers that aren't being invited are mostly trash talkers. Would you invite another into your house if you knew that their intention was to ignorantly trash talk everything you stand for.

You conservatives can sit around and delude yourselves with the silliness that comes from your side, but be rest assured, the things, that come from conservatives are insufficient to college level thinking.

 

To call yourself liberal or conservative is to adhere to identity politics. While they may be striving for a more inclusive society, they have to appeal to like-minded individuals. Which means garnering support from various groups that Democrats identify with. Which just so happens to be a broader range of individuals than the Republican party. Identity politics has nothing to do with the amount of people you identify with. It's still identity politics, regardless of who you get, provided you're catering to a specific group. Just because the Dems cater more to minorities doesn't necessarily make them not identity politicians. In fact, it defines the people they identify with. When Republicans try to get the working class vote, they're practicing identity politics. When the Democrats try to get college students' votes, they're practicing identity politics.

 

Seems to me one side, the Republicans, has a long history of excluding blacks from the election booth. Thus the essential point of the OP.

 

Really? Let's examine this.

Conservatives today campaign on specific issues like immigration, health care, national debt, national defense, and religious freedom *AND* have specific proposals for each and every one.

And what do the Marxist Democrats have? "We are with you", "We hate conservatives", "We hate the rich".

Tell me again who is anti-intellectual? There is no "intellectual" on the left to be anti against! There isn't a single Marxist Democrat on this forum who can even talk coherently about what Marxism *is*.

Oh, btw, those garage/bar/locker room inhabitants beat your ass into the ground last November.

 

Really? What do you suppose the Civil War was over? Who won?

 

There's no evidence to support to support that exclusivity and concentrated voting patterns are related. Its like saying there aren't a lot of oranges in the basket because there are a lot of apples.

Maybe the basket is too full of apples to hold more oranges, or maybe the basket is near empty but there are no oranges around to fill it, or any number of good reasons why that may happen. To assume one reason or another sans supporting evidence is folly.

 

Respectifully, you might want to reconsider how you worded this. The Republicans identified with a broader range of individuals than the Democrats. That's what winning far more counties and states means.

 

It might be closer to five decades. Non-the-less, the primary reason blacks mostly vote Democratic is because of the exclusionary tactics of Republicans. In fact, I'll go as far as to claim that the primary reason conservatives hate ObamaCare, besides their obvious hatred of our first half black president, is over the idea that somehow their insurance-premiums/tax-dollars will go to the care of blacks, Hispanics, of one of them homo-sex-u-alls.

 

Keep calling white people racists every chance you can and every other way to attack and insult as many voters as possible.

Thank you for doing your part in electing Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.

 

For starters, it is incorrect to say that I have to establish the party for whom a demographic overwhelmingly vote's "level of exclusivity". Nobody is claiming that Democrats exclude anyone which is what determining their level of exclusivity would tend to indicate. Both sides are obviously more than happy to accept anyone that is willing to cast a ballot for them. That isn't even REMOTELY what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the definition put forth by the OP that identity politics is " the tendency for persons of a particular race, religion, social background, and the like, to form exclusive political associations". Working within that guideline, and using his chosen topic of race, my task was to establish the "tendency" for persons of a particular race to form political associations. With that being the backdrop, the 90%/55% example PERFECTLY accomplishes that task. While I personally would not have chosen his definition as an entry into a conversation about identity politics, in order to respond to what he said, that is the direction in which the conversation flowed.

If we were indeed trying to establish the level of exclusivity for the Democrat party, you would have made a GREAT point. Since we were doing no such thing however, your "point" is meaningless. I find it hilarious that in order to "prove" me wrong, you opted to insist that I needed to make a correlation along a parameter that does not apply.

 

Seems to me that you are ignoring what was just said in the post to which you are replying, and changing the subject......AGAIN. This seems to be your favorite tactic.

Republicans believe that all people should have to show ID in order to vote. Democrats believe that having to show ID to vote is an affront to black people, presumably because Democrats believe that blacks are less capable of overcoming the same obstacle put in front of everyone.

Which side in the above example is playing identity politics?

 

You mean like the Democratic black caucus and Latino caucus? Or do you mean like black pride occasions excluding anyone who isn't black? Such fits exactly in the historic racial and ethnic segregationist history of the Democratic Party from then to this day. The Democratic Party still is the white supremacist party.

Let's all listen to the Democratic Party again explain how without Latinos as white people's servants, who will pick the crops and clean the toilets? THAT is the white supremacist Democratic party as it always has been.

To most white Democrats, Latinos will NEVER be "Americans," even in the USA before the USA existed as a country. From now until the end of time, Latinos will always be "Mexicans" to millions of white Democrats. But to those same white Democrats they are clear that white people here 1 generation are "Americans."

 

Absolutely not.

 

. Except for working class whites, or should I say barely working whites because Republican economic ideology has been wrecking havoc on their jobs, their communities, and their futures, every other demographic group voted for the other side.

You should also be reminded, that la Trump, like Bush before him came to office with a minority of the vote. Also, over the past few election cycles, more people have voted for Democratic candidates for the house, yet more Republicans were elected to office.

 

Not all black people vote Democratic.

Poor blacks who are poor because of Democrats vote for Democrats who promise to maintain their plantation welfare lifestyle exactly as LBJ said he would do with those "uppity n..ggers." (exact quote of that Democratic president.

Jim Crow voting laws were all made by Democrats.