2018 US Midterm Elections - DEMOCRATS WIN HOUSE, REPUBLICANS RETAIN SENATE

Remove this Banner Ad

FireKraquora said:
People are celebrating candidates based on their race or sexual preference. I'm colour blind m8, I just see them as people, not "black" people or "gay" people.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that's silly.

But you seem to be fine with the right's version of identity politics. Why is that?

Do you see people as people or as "southern" people? That's a link to the post you cut and pasted from Quora, wanking about "the symbol of the southern United States and its culture and way of life". Why don't you dismiss that as identity politics?

Is it because you just pick and choose based on what suits you in the moment?
 
Last edited:
FireKraquora said:
People are celebrating candidates based on their race or sexual preference. I'm colour blind m8, I just see them as people, not "black" people or "gay" people.
Click to expand...
"Diversity is differences in racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic, and academic/professional backgrounds. People with different opinions, backgrounds (degrees and social experience), religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual orientations, heritage, and life experience."

From the description above you pick out two?

Think that you have a narrow focus or preconceived notion of the meaning.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

its free real estate said:
Yes. What are you posting on? Who designed that? Do you know who Claude Shannon is? Do you know who William Shockley is? Do you know who James Clerk Maxwell is? Or Leonhard Euler? Or Carl Freidrich Gauss?

Do you understand the equations they derived and their discoveries that allow you to sit at a PC, hit a bunch of keys to send bits of data over electrical wire and sneer at “old white men”?

Before you dismiss “old white men” ask yourself what it is that you have contributed over and above what some of the greatest geniuses who ever lived that allows you to dismiss them. Not just technology but every field of endeavour you can imagine.

Otherwise you’re just a clown, repeating a moronic shibboleth for overeducated but unintelligent.

Newton, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, had the humility to understand he “stood on the shoulders of giants” but not some idiot who digested a meme on social media about “old white men”.
Click to expand...

I didn't dismiss old white men, just said that they shouldn't solely be the ones running things. Good rant though, made no sense, had some big words that you don't understand, and absolutely failed to address the point. What any of the above has to do with not having a representative government is beyond me, unless you think that being in the privileged, well funded and educated position to make advances for humankind is something that should be restricted to old white men as in days of yore.
 
Father Jack said:
I didn't dismiss old white men, just said that they shouldn't solely be the ones running things. Good rant though, made no sense, had some big words that you don't understand, and absolutely failed to address the point. What any of the above has to do with not having a representative government is beyond me, unless you think that being in the privileged, well funded and educated position to make advances for humankind is something that should be restricted to old white men as in days of yore.
Click to expand...
It didn’t make sense to you because you’re an ignoramus.
 
its free real estate said:
It didn’t make sense to you because you’re an ignoramus.
Click to expand...

Much fewer words and exactly as much logical, thought out argument than the previous post. I guess that's progress of sorts.
 
Chief said:
And the Boy is Proud of it.
Click to expand...
Lol.

The whole “we need more diversity in politicians to get better representation” is nonsense. Obama was the first true minority president, and aside from making white progressives feel good, he was a net negative for everyone else, especially minorities.

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality

More corporate concentration, fewer prosecutions of corporate criminals, and falling life expectancy all happened under Obama. His failure is what resulted in Trump.
 
Maggie5 said:
"Diversity is differences in racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic, and academic/professional backgrounds. People with different opinions, backgrounds (degrees and social experience), religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual orientations, heritage, and life experience."

From the description above you pick out two?

Think that you have a narrow focus or preconceived notion of the meaning.
Click to expand...
How about we just focus on merit instead of separating everyone into categories?

Do you agree, yes or no, we are all human beings deserving of equal rights?
 
happy_eagle said:
Why do you assume these people didn't win their races on merit ?

Celebrating diversity != minority quotas
Click to expand...
I didn't hear a reference to their abilities amongst the circle jerking ITT. It was literally "look at these 2 images and compare lol"
Sweet Jesus said:
Yes, I agree that's silly.

But you seem to be fine with the right's version of identity politics. Why is that?

Do you see people as people or as "southern" people? That's a link to the post you cut and pasted from Quora, wanking about "the symbol of the southern United States and its culture and way of life". Why don't you dismiss that as identity politics?

Is it because you just pick and choose based on what suits you in the moment?
Click to expand...
In your whataboutism quest you are very desperate to find hypocrisy - sad!

Hint: when discussing cultures, it is ok to bring up cultures. When discussing race, it is ok to bring up race. When discussing election results?? Let's discuss policy, not who's favorite pet minority won. That is just insulting, no?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Speaker said:
Why does DNA diversity matter more than than diversity of thought?

Isn't a parliament meant to represent various political beliefs?
Click to expand...
In this particular instance the new crop of candidates actually do represent a wider ranger of political beliefs including some Sanders Our Revolution backed people and some DSA candidates, but yes, you're correct. Thinking diversity was policy was what got the Democrats into this mess in the first place.
 
The Speaker said:
Why does DNA diversity matter more than than diversity of thought?

Isn't a parliament meant to represent various political beliefs?
Click to expand...
There was an article, I think in Vox, that complained that only around 65% of Hispanic voters chose the Democrat candidate in one of the races. And the complaint was “why only 65%”?

Should people of a certain ethnicity vote exclusively with one party? The same criticism was made of white women voting Republican at a split of 55-45, as if this was a major betrayal of who they were.

Now, how many successful societies have their beeen where people from differently fragmentary groups form political allegiances along ethnic lines? Not many. None?

That’s a sure path to Balkanisation.

Ocasio Cortes is the most interesting politician in the US at the moment, and it’s not because she’s a photogenic minority. Her position on things like Amazon, corporate power, health care, etc are what the Democrats should be built on. She’s building on what the Sanders insurgency started three years ago, an old white man (who was derided as that by the Clinton campaign).

Until now the Democrats have aimed to be a bunch of corporate suckholes with photogenic minorities. It hasn’t worked.
 
Last edited:
FireKraquora said:
How about we just focus on merit instead of separating everyone into categories?

Do you agree, yes or no, we are all human beings deserving of equal rights?
Click to expand...
Left political beliefs state merit is not totally fair because some show less merit but overcame disadvantages to get there.

I don’t agree with it, I reckon these things get way overthought. The world is dog eat dog and it gets too complicated to try to compensate for every “disadvantage “ (objective or subjective)
 
its free real estate said:
There was an article, I think in Vox, that complained that only around 65% of Hispanic voters chose the Democrat candidate in one of the races. And the complaint was “why only 65%”?

Should people of a certain ethnicity vote exclusively with one party? The same criticism was made of white women voting Republican at a split of 55-45, as if this was a major betrayal of who they were.

Now, how many successful societies have their beeen where people from differently fragmentary groups form political allegiances along ethnic lines? Not many. None?

That’s a sure path to Balkanisation.

Ocasio Cortes is the most interesting politician in the US at the moment, and it’s not because she’s a photogenic minority. Her position on things like Amazon, corporate power, health care, etc are what the Democrats should be built on. She’s building on what the Sanders insurgency started three years ago, an old white man (who was derided as that by the Clinton campaign).

Until now the Democrats have aimed to be a bunch of corporate suckholes with photogenic minorities. It hasn’t worked.
Click to expand...
Thought the complaint was more a reflection about campaign strategy and effect rather than “dem hispanics should always be voting for us”
 
Some interesting stats from the midterms.
The geographic diversity of these victories should not disguise their economic homogeneity. Among the nearly forty House districts where Democrats took control in 2018, about thirty are rated “prosperous” or “comfortable” by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan think tank. Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2).

In other words, the midterms confirmed that the Democrats have become — perhaps more than ever before in their two-hundred-year history — a party of the prosperous. The millionaire and billionaire governors, like Phil Murphy in New Jersey and J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, are only the gaudiest new constructions on the Democratic block.

Cast your eye across a list of the twenty richest House districts in the United States, measured by median income: every single one of them now has a Democratic representative. Of the wealthiest forty districts, thirty-five of them just elected a Democrat; of the wealthiest fifty, that number is forty-two.

According to exit polls, Republicans still maintain a slim advantage among all voters making six-figure incomes, but that margin has shrunk considerably since the 1980s and 1990s. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco (the twenty-fourth richest district in the country) and Steny Hoyer of suburban Maryland (the eighteenth richest) poised to take charge of the House, it’s worth considering what kind of politics are possible under the current party configuration.
Click to expand...
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/midterm-elections-reconstruction-du-bois
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
George Galloway Rochdale by election winner.
Replies
14
Views
628
Ballarat Bob
B
Geoff
Australia - US Relationship (If Trump Wins 2024)
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Syd
Syd
Maggie5
Democrats nominating for 2024
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
6K
Satan
Satan
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
Aristotle Pickett
USA House begins vote on motion to overthrow Kevin McCarthy
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
E Shed
E Shed
Blue Arrow
Oceania New Zealand election, Jacinda's legacy given the boot in crushing defeat
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas
Cap
Türkiye Elections 2023
Replies
5
Views
573
Cap
Cap

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top