"Something wonderful is going to happen"

[jamil]

No, I'm saying you trying to make a sentence say something it's not. The only reason that politicians should appealing to black people for their vote, is if they believe that they don't have the same protections of their rights as anyone else. Absent that, what other reason should their be, that does not also affect non-Black voters?

I think you should ask Democrats that question. They treat black voters as a voting bloc. Trump only said, hey, instead of preferring democrats, why not take a chance on republicans? You're trying to make this mean something it doesn't mean.

I'm saying what is meant by the statement. You're making a should argument, I'm making an is argument. You're living in a different world than the one that is. I would rather live in the world you proposed. But the one we live in is the one where some black leaders in Detroit, for example, expected that because they helped elect Obama, he would bring home the bacon. And Detroit is still a ****hole, because of Democratic policies, and not despite them. We live in a world where some black leaders demand reparations and where most of the candidates on the debate stage agree with the idea publicly, because they don't want to be seen disagreeing with it.

 

[mmpsteve]

So white people in those places aren't worthy of being pandered too? Well, that assumes that they are subject to the same wants and needs as other people.

So could we agree, and would it have been a more apt statement if Trump had said, "No matter what color you are, if you live in a Democrat-run-for-generations ****hole, and have always voted Dem, maybe you should consider some different policies, and vote Repub. What do you have to lose"?

I propose that would have made more sense. Cause let's face it; in Baltimore, both blacks and whites generally vote Dem, and the place is becoming more ****hole-like every day. And you can substitute any other ****hole Dem-run city for Baltimore.

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So could we agree, and would it have been a more apt statement if Trump had said, "No matter what color you are, if you live in a Democrat-run-for-generations ****hole, and have always voted Dem, maybe you should consider some different policies, and vote Repub. What do you have to lose"?

I propose that would have made more sense. Cause let's face it; in Baltimore, both blacks and whites generally vote Dem, and the place is becoming more ****hole-like every day. And you can substitute any other ****hole Dem-run city for Baltimore.

.

That would have been lightyears better. One of the reason I have liked the GOP, is their lack of such pandering. Pandering is the height of political fakeness.

 

[BugI02]

No, I'm saying you trying to make a sentence say something it's not. The only reason that politicians should appealing to black people for their vote, is if they believe that they don't have the same protections of their rights as anyone else. Absent that, what other reason should their be, that does not also affect non-Black voters?

This is specious, the outcome of the next election affects us all. The Trump campaign's outreach to black voters is the same as their outreach to the deplorables - 'Help us reject socialism for another generation and move this country back to its capitalist, christian roots of valuing and dignifying honest labor and self reliance'

 

[BugI02]

Conservatives observe an ideology that non-conservatives do not. Surely you aren't saying that Black people observe an ideology that non-blacks do not.

What was that you were nattering to jamil about - you know, trying to make a sentence say something it didn't? Conservatives are a proper subset of all voters that Trump republicans feel they can best represent of the two main parties. Trump republicans also recognize black Americans as a proper subset of all voters that they likewise believe they can effectively represent - at least the one's that share certain core values

Surely you're not saying white people observe an ideology that non-whites do not, eh?

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is specious, the outcome of the next election affects us all. The Trump campaign's outreach to black voters is the same as their outreach to the deplorables - 'Help us reject socialism for another generation and move this country back to its capitalist, christian roots of valuing and dignifying honest labor and self reliance'

This is the FIRST time I've ever seen that outreach platform. The very first. So yeah, not sold.

 

[BugI02]

This is the FIRST time I've ever seen that outreach platform. The very first. So yeah, not sold.

That's because you can't see past your hatred for Trump to perceive the world as it is or might be

Vis a vis anyone voting Democrat en bloc from the blasted heaths of Democrat controlled cities, Einstein defined crazy as doing the same things over and over again but expecting different results

 

[jamil]

So could we agree, and would it have been a more apt statement if Trump had said, "No matter what color you are, if you live in a Democrat-run-for-generations ****hole, and have always voted Dem, maybe you should consider some different policies, and vote Repub. What do you have to lose"?

I propose that would have made more sense. Cause let's face it; in Baltimore, both blacks and whites generally vote Dem, and the place is becoming more ****hole-like every day. And you can substitute any other ****hole Dem-run city for Baltimore.

.

That would be a better way of saying it, but I don’t believe it would have been received any better.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What was that you were nattering to jamil about - you know, trying to make a sentence say something it didn't? Conservatives are a proper subset of all voters that Trump republicans feel they can best represent of the two main parties. Trump republicans also recognize black Americans as a proper subset of all voters that they likewise believe they can effectively represent - at least the one's that share certain core values

Surely you're not saying white people observe an ideology that non-whites do not, eh?

Obviously not, hence why I asked essentially the exact same question in the post you quoted. The question is simple. What unique benefit, meant for Black voters, is Trump offering. And why should they benefit from it when other groups assumedly cannot? Or is there something that non-Blacks benefit from, that Black voters do not, which he seeks to address? My next question, is "what are those?"

 

[Kutnupe14]

That would be a better way of saying it, but I don’t believe it would have been received any better.

It wouldn't be received better, because many Black voters have been coddled into the "what can you do for me" scam; mostly by Democrats. It shouldn't be "me," it should be "us." If there's something related specifically related to the rights of Black people, with the indication that they are being denied rights that non-Blacks have, then by all means, go for it. But if it's anything other than that, you're pandering, creating a divide, and reinforcing stereotypes.

 

[jamil]

It wouldn't be received better, because many Black voters have been coddled into the "what can you do for me" scam; mostly by Democrats. It shouldn't be "me," it should be "us." If there's something related specifically related to the rights of Black people, with the indication that they are being denied rights that non-Blacks have, then by all means, go for it. But if it's anything other than that, you're pandering, creating a divide, and reinforcing stereotypes.

I agree with most of that except for the last. Trump said that no group has been hurt more by democrat policies than blacks. If the idea there is that democrats target blacks with their policies, then that seems like a reasonable proposition to ask, what do you have to lose. It’s not just a different proposition promising to target them “better” than the Democrats, promising to give them specifically more.

The economy is lifting everyone up. Black people, as the numbers go haven’t lost under Trump. They’ve gained. Employment is up. Income is up. You can argue it would have been the same if Hillary had won, but it wouldn’t be very convincing. It is what it is, and Trump didn’t offer up any particular new programs specifically for blacks. It’s fine if politicians try to seek the support of the various voting blocs. That in itself is not pandering.

Polls are showing that blacks, as a voting bloc, are supporting Trump in higher numbers than they did in 2016. I think his message this time should be, “I asked you last election what do you have to lose? And most of you didn’t vote for me. I ask you now, with me as president, to look in your bank accounts. What have you lost? Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” That’s not pandering. I think there is a way to interpret the question where it’s insulting, or pandering. I don’t think that’s the correction interpretation though.

 

[BugI02]

Obviously not, hence why I asked essentially the exact same question in the post you quoted. The question is simple. What unique benefit, meant for Black voters, is Trump offering. And why should they benefit from it when other groups assumedly cannot? Or is there something that non-Blacks benefit from, that Black voters do not, which he seeks to address? My next question, is "what are those?"

It seems like you are fishing for what I think black issues are and how I think Trump can address them. You fail to comprehend that I don't think there are black issues, there are just American issues. You want to make something out of the idea that there are no uniquely black issues and I would agree with that. I would argue that blacks are a demographic group, just like white evangelicals (who are not all white) or educated suburban dwellers, and that you are unfamiliar with a specific black targeted outreach because there won't be one. The outreach will be more of a come join us if you believe the hard work you're willing to provide and the opportunity 4 more years of Trump will provide can improve your lot in life. We have a vision for America that includes you but it won't be 'free', ou'll have to work towards it with us. I don't believe you will see much in the way of pandering - more 'Two Corinthians' than 'reparations'

 

[jedi]

True. And it also might be time to look at the indirect drains on the program outside of OA . (SD for example. Widely abused)

Sshhhh
It is political suicide to look at the programs and try and cut them. Agree that apart from the original program, retirement benefits for the ACTUAL WORKER, the rest of the benefits limped into ss need to go but wont.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree with most of that except for the last. Trump said that no group has been hurt more by democrat policies than blacks. If the idea there is that democrats target blacks with their policies, then that seems like a reasonable proposition to ask, what do you have to lose. It’s not just a different proposition promising to target them “better” than the Democrats, promising to give them specifically more.

The economy is lifting everyone up. Black people, as the numbers go haven’t lost under Trump. They’ve gained. Employment is up. Income is up. You can argue it would have been the same if Hillary had won, but it wouldn’t be very convincing. It is what it is, and Trump didn’t offer up any particular new programs specifically for blacks. It’s fine if politicians try to seek the support of the various voting blocs. That in itself is not pandering.

Polls are showing that blacks, as a voting bloc, are supporting Trump in higher numbers than they did in 2016. I think his message this time should be, “I asked you last election what do you have to lose? And most of you didn’t vote for me. I ask you now, with me as president, to look in your bank accounts. What have you lost? Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?” That’s not pandering. I think there is a way to interpret the question where it’s insulting, or pandering. I don’t think that’s the correction interpretation though.

I disagree. Democrats pander, get elected, and then do nothing. There is nothing specific about their policies that are more detrimental to Black people, than anyone else. Overall, the federal government can do very little in this regard, and real change (whatever that is), must be handled at a more local level.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It seems like you are fishing for what I think black issues are and how I think Trump can address them. You fail to comprehend that I don't think there are black issues, there are just American issues. You want to make something out of the idea that there are no uniquely black issues and I would agree with that. I would argue that blacks are a demographic group, just like white evangelicals (who are not all white) or educated suburban dwellers, and that you are unfamiliar with a specific black targeted outreach because there won't be one. The outreach will be more of a come join us if you believe the hard work you're willing to provide and the opportunity 4 more years of Trump will provide can improve your lot in life. We have a vision for America that includes you but it won't be 'free', ou'll have to work towards it with us. I don't believe you will see much in the way of pandering - more 'Two Corinthians' than 'reparations'

Fishing? I think that was directly asked.

 

[jamil]

It seems like you are fishing for what I think black issues are and how I think Trump can address them. You fail to comprehend that I don't think there are black issues, there are just American issues. You want to make something out of the idea that there are no uniquely black issues and I would agree with that. I would argue that blacks are a demographic group, just like white evangelicals (who are not all white) or educated suburban dwellers, and that you are unfamiliar with a specific black tageted outreach because there won't be one. The outreach will be more of a come join us if you believe the hard work you're willing to provide and the opportunity 4 more years of Trump will provide can improve your lot in life. We have a vision for America that includes you but it won't be 'free', ou'll have to work towards it with us. I don't believe you will see much in the way of pandering - more 'Two Corinthians' than 'reparations'

Trump pandered hard to evangelicals. Famously failed the language test much like many Democrats have done with blacks. Like Joe’s “they gonna keep y’all in chains.” Trump, with his “two Corinthians...”

 

[jamil]

I disagree. Democrats pander, get elected, and then do nothing. There is nothing specific about their policies that are more detrimental to Black people, than anyone else. Overall, the federal government can do very little in this regard, and real change (whatever that is), must be handled at a more local level.

Uh, did you read the rest?

 

[BugI02]

So; you're saying Trump encouraging manufacturing, with its higher pay and low barriers to entry, over service sector jobs (including taking on the Chinese and discouraging off-shoring) is no better for the black demographic or the deplorable demographic than what a Democrat would bring to the table?

I don't even limit that to the current crop of Democrats. What did Obama do to increase the opportunity for the non-elite to have a job that would offer a middle-class standard of living? Attack coal mining? Stifle the energy sector? Give up on the manufacturing problem by admitting defeat and saying "Those jobs aren't coming back"? It's about the people the globalists left behind, some of whom happen to be black (or brown or red or ....). What's wrong with seeking to form a winning coalition of people who believe in America and equality of opportunity, that you make your own luck?

 

[BugI02]

Trump pandered hard to evangelicals. Famously failed the language test much like many Democrats have done with blacks. Like Joe’s “they gonna keep y’all in chains.” Trump, with his “two Corinthians...”

Yes, but I see that as much less worthy of opprobrium than 'I'll take other people's money to repay you for what their ancestors likely had no part in doing to people who may or may not be their ancestors'

One is cringeworthy but harmless, one is an attempt to buy loyalty and maintain dependence

 

[BugI02]

Fishing? I think that was directly asked.

Forgive me, there is no way to say this nicely. With you it is hard to tell.

From my viewpoint you seldom say what you mean. Sometimes I believe it is to leave wiggle room to change the direction of a discussion ('I never said that' or 'That's not what I meant') or to allow a bailout when the argument goes against you

It seems like a question, provided it's not leading, should be possible to frame clearly in a sentence or two