White liberals more likely to 'patronize' minorities than conservatives, study finds
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
White liberals present themselves as less competent when addressing minorities, while conservatives use the same vocabulary no matter what the race of their audience, according to a newly released study .
Yale and Princeton researchers found that white Democratic presidential candidates and self-identified liberals played down their competence when speaking to minorities, using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth.
On the other hand, there were no significant differences in how white conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, spoke to white versus minority audiences.
“White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites — that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent,” according to the study’s abstract.
Cydney Dupree , assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, said she was surprised by the findings of the study, which sought to discover how “well-intentioned whites” interact with minorities.
“It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left — that white conservatives are racist — while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites.
The paper, which is slated for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, first examined speeches by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to mostly white and mostly minority audiences dating back 25 years.
Ms. Dupree and Princeton’s Susan Fiske analyzed the text for “words related to competence” such as “assertive” and “competitive” and “words related to warmth” such as “supportive” and “compassionate.”
“The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences,” said the Yale press release. “The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates.”
Ms. Dupree noted that Republicans also gave fewer speeches to minority audiences.
The researchers then set up an experiment in which white liberals were asked to respond to hypothetical individuals named “Emily” and “Lakisha.”
“Liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white,” said the release. “No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner.”
Ms. Dupree said the “competence downshift” could indicate a greater eagerness by white liberals to connect with those of other races.
“My hope is that this work will help include well-intentioned people who see themselves as allies but who may be unwittingly contributing to group divides,” said Ms. Dupree . “There is a broader need to include them in the conversation.”
Tags
Who is online
136 visitors
What a surprise./S
Patronizing liberals? Shocking.
Good article and ya, no surprise. They also take great pains to convince minorities that they were victims and the democratic party is their only option.
Wow you mean they actually had to have a study to figure this out.
You can bet your ass this is one study the left will choose to ignore.
That's pretty much what Orin Hatch (R-Utah) said to the tribes there last year along with ''take my word for it''.
Sharice Davids upset incumbent Yoder by 10 points in their congressional race...Karma.
I knew someone that got offended would provide one example. Sure it happens on both sides, it just happens a lot more on one side.
Not offended at all 96. Just providing some ignorant/bigoted comments by republicans. Actually it's two examples and I have more to add.
Yes indeed, it does seem to happen a lot more on the right..,
lol denial.
No denial at all. Mostly it's your inability to comprehend anything that isn't a RW talking point that leaves you giggling to yourself.
Your deial is my problem....go it. How liberal.
It's best that you consult a dictionary as to ''denial''...I didn't deny anything, that seems to be your uninformed opinion.
Keep digging...LMAO
I agree that liberals do this. I don't think it's a conscious thing or that it's coming from a bad place but it has created problems and contributed to this PC culture.
On the other hand, Conservatives absolutely mean what they say when they talk about minorities and thus the reason they are dwindling down to only old white men.
Ah nice so when Proglibs do it they don't mean it and actually mean well but oh my them conservatives are truly racist?
I can't believe you actually wrote this. SMH
When it's OK to make jokes about all black people looking alike but you can't say something like monkey things up in regards to the economy and economic polices when your opponent is black depending on what letter is behind your name it is pretty obvious to most people there is strong predetermined prejudice.
I would once again remind you of the democratic parties racist past and ask why they didn't pass the kind of prison reform Trump is trying to when they could have 8 years ago.
96.....96......96........ Pj shakes her head and looks up to the sky
Everyone knows that when the Democrats were considered racist they would later morph into the current republican party.
Regarding Prison Reform: Prison wasn't as big a racket as it is now. It's extremely profitable. Plus Trump and family are preparing for their time in jail so it makes sense they would want to try and implement prison reform.
Pj, your the second person I've seen post this false statement. (crap statement actually)
Would you mind please telling me where your getting this? I would seriously like to take a look at their basis for making such a baldfaced BS lie...
NWM - it's not a crap statement.
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?
Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [ How Have Tax Rates Changed Over Time? ]
Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.
But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.
Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.
LMFAO! This is complete crap. BO and his ilk did NOTHING for minorities, they could have passed prison reform when they had the majority but they didn't. SOME VOTED AGAINST IT and it still has to pass congress, so keep your eyes peeled on how many Dems vote no on it in the senate too. You kan kid yourself all you want they are still the racist party.
You can lead a horse to water but ......... well ( Pj shrugs )......you know the rest.
Look 96, I'm sorry that you've aligned yourself with an unsavory party.
Look, I tell you what. I'm still willing to be your friend. See, all hope is not lost.
Your quoting Live Science? Eric Rauchway as authoritative?
My oh my..... The source of you didn't build that.....
History has always had a political aspect, and Rouchway, in the history circles I run is considered one of the biggest advocates of re-writing history....
A professor of History at Berkeley, ok carry on.....
I don't need to hear anymore....
Up to the end of the civil war, people traveled west by wagon train mostly. after the Civil war by the expanding infrastructure driven by the economy of the civil war....
Need I remind you that President Johnson (Lincoln's vice president) was a democrat? Reconstruction (as managed by Johnson and his cronies) was the absolute worst thing that could have happened to the south. Johnson's (and his parties) ideals?
Lincoln was dead remember, he didn't guide the nation after the Civil War....
My god where does one start.......
Democrats re-writing their history.... Who would have thunk....
Did he move schools? I thought that he was at UC Davis.
I hadn't heard that before. What would those history circles be that consider him an advocate of re writing history?
I enjoyed his books on the New Deal, the great Depression and Killing McKinley. I didn't see any re writing of history there.
So please tell us when this happened?
How does the link, that I personally don't think you bothered to read. prove your assertion when all it talks about is the parties stances on Federal power?
I looked for the water but all I seen was bull dung.
So please tell us when they "morphed". Was it after 1972?
I have to add that I didn't agree with much of his argument re FDR, I didn't see it as re writing history but of offering a different view of FDR's policies and Mc Kinley policies.
Hey! It took me all of about 20 seconds to do that indepth research and find a source that would support my interpretation of history.
I put a lot of effort into this and you just poo poo'ed it.
yes he did... early on.....
Historians have a network of communication just like all academicians do, their work is peer reviewed as well..... there are two different schools of thought in History circles. Those that feel history must be interpreted for those that will fail to understand without their thoughtful analysis, and those that explain how the facts interrelate and allow others to come to their own conclusions....
I belong to the self interpretation branch of historical research, he belongs to the guided historical interpretation branch.....
Others historians of the self interpretation branch? Shelby Foote, John Toland, Barbra Fields, James Symington, William Safire and numerous others...
He covers the new deal fairly well in what it was supposed to be and the whys, where he failed is in the outcomes and how long the "New Deal" actually lasted and what Roosevelt finally wound up doing to combat the Great Depression. (almost exactly the same things Hoover was doing with one major difference) Roosevelt understood the power of the media, the power to shape opinions and used it masterfully. His fireside chats offering hope and a calming influence were a master stroke politically earning a trust of the American people that few have enjoyed since even if his new deal policies were mostly defunct within two years.......
Roosevelt (FDR) was a great man and a great president he was a stabling influence at a time when we could easily have gone off the rails as a nation....
Bravo sweetheart!
A lifetime of study in 20 seconds, I'm impressed.....
And thank you for admitting that your supporting YOUR interpretation of history. (or rather that you agree with his interpretation) There are a lot of learned people, (not as quick a study as you are) that have much different opinions... (and have taken decades to formulate theirs)
Really impressive.....
I'm not familiar with those two branches of history. I am aware of the''conversative/consenses and the ''progressive'' branches of the study of history.
His book on the ''New Deal'' isn't a rewriting of history but a view that differs in some ways than other historians.
FRD was the master politician. His fireside chats were exactly what the public wanted and needed at the time. Also his hiding of his disability (polio) was another move that if the public would have seen him in a wheelchair their confidence might have been much different.
Hmm....... I think you're making fun of me......
but you did it in a clever way.
Kidding aside, this is a good example of a partial reality becoming a truth. It's kinda like the story that get's twisted with each telling.
With that said, I believe that republicans that have chosen to support this President are racist not because of anything from history but from what I've witnessed first hand under the previous Administration and this Administration. Republicans with any sense of decency and honesty have fled the republican party. They understand that this President is vile and corrupt and racist. Nothing you or anyone else says will ever sway how I feel.
My description is the same thing just stated more technically....
the problem I had with his book is he offers his opinions, picks his facts to back up his positions draws conclusions on those opinions and then offers them as fact... (rather than the interpretations they clearly are)
One of the greatest politicians that ever lived..... and yes his affliction was disguised as much as possible.....
The ultimate master stroke in the middle of an unadulterated disaster??
His handling of the Pearl Harbor disaster..... the day after, once the reports describing the extent of the disaster became clear, (the Pacific Fleet had been effectively rendered impotent) He called a conference of the political leaders of the day, ALL OF THEM. and what he told them both privately and in public was next to nothing about the true extent of the disaster.... A day later, he interrupted his preparations of a request for a declaration of war against the Japanese Empire. He chose to deal with the press which were hounding the WH press office with requests for a pressconference anything to get out to the people.... He couldn't do that, the issues were too great, the potential for further disaster all too plain....
What he chose to do was call in Ed Murrow for a single sitdown, not an official interview, just a visit to make a request....
He requested that Murrow report on the disaster truthfully but withhold the specific details or reveal them in a way that wouldn't set off a panic.... He gave Murrow complete and accurate details, stuff he didn't tell the assembled leaders of Congress, he laid out the entire disaster and the completely unprotected west coast that resulted from the disaster.... and that it would be at least a year before anything could be done about it... And trusted Murrow to report what was necessary to communicate the gravitus of the situation without causing a complete panic....
And of course Murrow was the voice everyone recognized by the population as the trusted voice of the news of his day.... (His "London is Burning" broadcasts were heard all over the world)
That was a hell of a gamble to trust the actual factual knowledge of the true extent of the disaster to the media and Roosevelt was well aware of the Pulitzer effect.
But then Murrow understood what a responsibility he was being handed.
One of the great things about Roosevelt?
He was a master at judging people and convincing them that the mission was more important than the personalities.... that's why there are a lot of Republicans that respect him a great deal even if we do not forgive him his policies...
He was a leader and one we needed at the time he was there...
I don't think that post Reagan we will ever find another...
Well when you use scarcasm like you did you can expect a curt reply back.....
Vile, a little strong, I would use repugnant. Corrupt, yet to be proven, potentially yes but I will wait for the evidence.
Racist? not hardly, he will use anyone to get his position formulated into a winning one, that is a fact that completely belies racism in any way..... If I used the same standard as many are that are calling him a racist then they will have to belly up to the propaganda bar and accept the corresponding dose of claims that Obama was a racist also..... Cause in trying to get his agenda across he did the same things as T-rump has done....
So the racist claim fails.....
To you it fails. To me and a majority of the country and the WORLD it's pretty evident. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......it's a duck.
Unfortunately, I don't think you are particularly of sufficient knowledge to claim the world or the majority of Americans think as you are entitled to...
But I understand there is emotional strength in claiming superior numbers.....
WE are never going to agree girl, even though I do like you personally a lot...
Me too, I like you a lot also NWM but you are correct. We will most likely never agree on this topic.
(not the hollywood #metoo) hahahahaha
Someone needs to read a history book.
Like I said the Dems are VERY LIKELY to be on the wrong side of history AGAIN. Make sure you are paying attention this time.
Where's the study about all the gaffs Republicans have made like saying they'd attend a public hanging if invited or calling a random person of color "Macacca"? This is saying liberals and Democrats address minorities with more warmth, is that really a bad thing?
"using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth."
Is that really a good way to assess whether one party is better for you and whatever race you identify with? Really?
The fact that some liberals found that offensive is actually a justification for talking down to them.
This is saying liberals and Democrats address minorities with more warmth, is that really a bad thing?
By all means, let's argue that talking down to minorities like they are children is a good thing. It's not often people admit to being racist, so let's hear your justifications for why talking down to minorities is a good thing.
IKR? Nothing like doubleing down.
This is an example of the larger problem. The Left declares things to be gaffes when they aren't. They insist someone has been insulting when they haven't. They declare racism to exist where it doesn't simply because making the accusation makes them feel superior. The truth of the accused person's feelings are irrelevant. Any attempt to deny the accusation or explain the words or behavior is - to the SJW leftist - only proof of the racism they think they saw.
Even NewsTalkers has a "CoC," and "Terms of Service," no ?
So when conservatives wish to go around firing off terms, like our ignorant sitting president repeating, " Pocahontas " out of proper context in the presence of Native Americans:
President Donald Trump revived his derogatory nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Monday, referring to her as "Pocahontas" during an event honoring Native American veterans at the White House.
Trump told the veterans: "You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas."
SOURCE :
Why would this Fred Flintstone look-a-like think to display such a derogatory, in poor taste, remark before esteemed veterans-of-a-certain age? Because he is a self-important ass who has little to no respect for the Office of the President, or the work and images of others. So the "appropriate people" have to snap his and others butts back to reality!
Because it's funny? I mean the name calling is something I would prefer not to see from a president, but if you're looking for racism in that story, it can be found in the actions of Elizabeth Warren and Harvard Law School. Trump is just making fun of them for it.
President Donald Trump is a delinquent 70ish year old man. There is not a damn thing funny or interesting about any president polluting the hearts, minds, and eyeballs of 350 plus million people with lies, namecalling, and mockings. At its best, it was a "one-off" but this imbecilic Yahoo does not know how to let it go. Besides, he is punching down. Translation: The "big man" is mind-jacking the country and its Native America populations for a stupid laugh. Which you admit you find funny, by the way!
Well, Trump's name-shaming of others has jumped the shark: Just ask Senator Jon Tester of Montana who recently won reelection to SIX MORE YEARS IN THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE while being ridiculed by President "Fred Flintstone."
I don't know what that means. I do know what it means to hijack something, though, and I think everyone's minds are still their own.
Yes, while I don't approve of him insulting people, I can still analyze a humorous statement on its own merit. I think the Pocahontas thing is actually one of his more clever slams and I don't find it racist in the slightest. If I did, I wouldn't think it was funny.
But it's ok for you to insult the president. Different standards of behavior, I guess.
It is okay to call a faker—plastic. A phoney—fraud. A mean protagonist—a jerk. If Trump wishes to be nasty and mean and have nasty and mean supporters, then he can handle as good as he gives!
Turn around and go talk to Trump: Tell him to drop his rocks; for "violence begets violence."
It means Trump needs to stop lying to the country every day and having his staff, surrogates, and supporters tirelessly defending his reckless persona. We can not trust what he says to be true in any sense, world leaders consider his complicated deal-making to be faithless, and now he is most definitely heading to a vote of no-confidence on the world stage.
President Trump is coming into focus as two things he despises the most: Spent and Worthless at home and abroad.
Um, point of order, buddy. There is no DEMOCRATIC SENATE> There is one senate and it is controlled by a Republican majority. When you're trying to insult another, it's a good idea to have your ducks in order first.
Is it not so?
Jon Tester (D) Montana, US Senate incumbent WINS! Spikegary, thanks for the assist!
Thinking English is a second language to you. There is no Democrat Senate. The senate is the senate. It is currently controlled by the Republicans. You can make up tings as you please, doesn't make them true.
Do you know who the Senate Majority and Senate Minority Leaders are?
Do you know what those term signify?
Enough. You are confusing yourself.
What means this line of questioning? I'm bored.
You claimed it is a Democratic Senate.
I wish to know if you know what the terms mean, or do you still believe, despite others pointing out your error, that it is a Democratic Senate?
Do I know what/who the Senate Majority Leader is: Mitch (dirty dealing) McConnell.
Do I know what/who the Senate Minority Leader is: Chuck (sputtering along) Schumer.
I also stated Jon Tester is a democrat(ic) senator. The "ic" additional is just having fun. Don't overthink it. Try not to exploit it. Do not allow it to overwhelm your days here.
It was a mistake. I was tired. I was distracted by the telephone. The dog ate my homework. Coffee was not "up" at that time. Someone was yelling at me to hurry and let's go. My milk spilled. . . .
Do you need any more reasons for why you and Spikegary should let it go? I have a million more.
I am sure you have any number of excuses.
So be it.
Yes. Mistakes were made. I have often heard stated.
“White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites"
Candace Owens has been saying things like this, and Liberals call her a nut !
Oh boy! Now she is a piece of work. Candace Owens good on you for find a niche for yourself on the right. Pursue it and see where it leads you.
Candace may want to ask the republican leadership which includes Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump why the, . . . heaven, Tim Scott has been put in a position to refuse to vote for two federal judge candidates put forward by the Administration. Only Senator Scott and Senator Flake and all the senate democrats halted the advances of these racists republican nominees to the federal courts (a vote suppressor and prejudiced writer).
Where was Candace Owens speaking out against this? The mind wonders. All the same, it is nice to see some 'color' in the Republican Party! It can have a positive effect, if men and women like Tim Scott can keep their political spine grounded in the truth.
By the way, for a change, good on Senator Tim Scott!
Why didn't you just call her uncle tom? Thanks for unwittingly proving the articles pioint LMFAO!
Candace Owens can be whoever and whatever she wants to be - similar to the democrats being whoever and whatever they wish to be. But, once she stands up and starts telling other people they are wrong for doing what it is they intend—she is out of line.
Does that make her an Uncle Tom? No! There is a niche there for her and other black people like her. I wish her well. And truly hope she does well in the Republican Party and life. Just do not ever let anybody 'blac-ploitate" her and them and we're good!
One more thing. If, as an insider, she can help end the voter suppression obsession running rampant in conservative circles she will earn her 'laurels'! Voter suppression exploitation is bad for everybody.
Hi Gooseisgone! Can you elaborate?
"Cortez" is the "SMART" one.
Does this sell out have a spot on Faux 'news'? She's nothing but a token for Faux 'news'
And I'm sure you DIDN'T mean it in a racist way !
You're such an "Uppity" sort.
[Removed]
[Derogatory terms to demean based on race are not acceptable on this forum.]
You use the Urban Dictionary whenever you can....huh !
Doesn't make you a …….. non-racists !
Condoleezza Rice should give you an "Award" !
Any black who doesn't toe the Democratic Party line is automatically an Uncle Tom, and any Hispanic who doesn't is termed an Aunt Tomasina.
But always remember that it isn't the progressive liberals who label people who don't agree with them!
The Democratic Party ALWAYS show their true "COLORS" when they don't like something.
They even USE "COLOR" when they "Like" Something too.
Look at the border thingy going on now. Must be the "Old WHITE Guys fault"...….. AGAIN !
Even with homosexuals--if they are Republican or conservative, some of the progressive liberals brand them as "being light in the loafers". Can you IMAGINE all the faux "poutrage" if a conservative Republican referred to a gay man in that manner? Why, there would probably be calls for civil lawsuits!
In Democrat world...…… a Democrat that is ……. FILL IN THE BLANK...…..is a good Democrat !
If you're Not a "Democrat"...….you are a derogatory ……. FILL IN THE BLANK !
There are reasons SJWs are always accusing others of racism, but it's rarely because the person they are accusing is actually racist. It's always on their minds and not on the minds of regular people. Most of us look across the table and just see a person.
The SJWs are measuring intersectionality. They literally assess someone's worth and decide how they will treat that person based on their race, their sex, their religion, and other ethnic factors. Sadly, they lack the self awareness to see their own bigotry and will ignore it even when someone can measure it as we see here.
They complain that the country is divided without realizing that they themselves are the ones doing the dividing.
Great article. IMO Affirmative Action and overzealous PC just perpetuate some humans (are we not all equal?) being treated as inferior. One of my favourites is "Some of my best friends are Jews". LOL
If conservatives treat minorities in such a way to indicate that they are equals, i.e. no different than the majority, that is surely what SHOULD be.
Some more of Hillarys greatest hits and talking down to her voters.
There is nothing wrong with some uses of affectations They can draw people in when used in the right context. However, pronouncing "Second Corinthians" as "Two Corinthians" will leave a stoic laughing to the point of stitches. I'm just saying. . . .
I get it, though. Hillary Clinton is a mocking touchstone for conservatives now and forever ad infinitum.
You know full well if a Republican gave a speech in the same manner they would be called out of touch and racist. Democrats are free to be as pandering and mocking as they want to be and they know the mainstream media will cover for them. So yes, there is a problem when a rich white liberal uses what Harry Reid calls "a Negro dialect".
Er' you may remember or do you choose to ignore the affinity Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have with the black people of America?! Black People get to choose (just like conservatives) whom they allow into their inner sanctum; it is not an academic one-size-fit-all cultural 'step.'
The Clinton's have a re-lat-ion-ship with the Black community. That is: They 'bonded' with the people who live out their daily lives in the trenches of "blackness." Bill Clinton, at least, empathized and make some concessions to the plight of Black Americans. Also, if you need a reminder, the politics of 1990's America was a chasm-wide of difference from the politics of present day.
As for your 'negro dialect,' I think Hillary was attempting to affect a drawl (and after her manner that is the best she can do). Listen to the real James Cleveland (as long as you can):
So, there you have it. And for the record if a republican had given a speech in the same manner it would have been 'panned' for the obvious reason: no relationship has been borne out for a "mulligan" to be allowed!
Black voters didn't come out for Hillary the same way they did for Obama- so the Clintons "inner sanctum" space is a lot smaller than you think. In fact Trump got more minority voters than Romney, the supposedly safe, moderate candidate did. Maybe back in the nineties Bill Clinton got the title of the "first black president" but those days are gone. Now the Clintons are the people who called young black men "super predators" and joke about how "they all look alike". And even trying to mimic somebody of a different race is considered bigoted by today's standards.
Really? Just how much replay of this do you wish to do? President Obama is a black man not engrossed in scandal, though conservatives tried like, . . .heaven. . . to sully him. No such luck with Hillary Clinton, conservatives torn her "a new one" and keep pouring salt into it.
What happened to Hillary Clinton in 2016's election cycle, the story is still being written. You, should not boast, but it is what conservatives do. As Jesus would say, "Lord, forgive them for what they do."
EXCEPT
• State Department email. In an effort to evade federal open-records laws, Mr. Obama’s first secretary of state set up a private server, which she used exclusively to conduct official business, including communications with the president and the transmission of classified material. A federal criminal investigation produced no charges, but FBI Director James Comey reported that the secretary and her colleagues “were extremely careless” in handling national secrets.
• Operation Fast and Furious. The Obama Justice Department lost track of thousands of guns it had allowed to pass into the hands of suspected smugglers, in the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was used in the fatal 2010 shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Congress held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt when he refused to turn over documents about the operation.
• IRS abuses. Mr. Obama’s Internal Revenue Service did something Richard Nixon only dreamed of doing: It successfully targeted political opponents. The Justice Department then refused to enforce Congress’s contempt citation against the IRS’s Lois Lerner, who refused to answer questions about her agency’s misconduct.
• Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. With less than two months to go before the 2012 election, the State Department falsely claimed the attack was not a terrorist attack but a reaction to an anti-Muslim film. Emails from the secretary later showed that she knew the attack was terrorism. Justice Department prosecutors even convinced a magistrate judge to jail the filmmaker.
• Hacking. Mr. Obama presided over the biggest data breach in the federal government’s history, at the Office of Personnel Management. The hack exposed the personnel files of millions of federal employees and may end up being used for everything from identity theft to blackmail and espionage. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, the president’s former political director, had been warned repeatedly about security deficiencies but took no steps to fix them.
• Veterans Affairs. At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at a Phoenix VA facility, many of whom had been on a secret waiting list—part of an effort to conceal that between 1,400 and 1,600 veterans were forced to wait months for appointments. A 2014 internal VA audit found “57,436 newly enrolled veterans facing a minimum 90-day wait for medical care; 63,869 veterans who enrolled over the past decade requesting an appointment that never happened.” Even Mr. Obama admitted, in a November 2016 press conference, that “it was scandalous what happened”—though minutes earlier he boasted that “we will—knock on wood—leave this administration without significant scandal.”
All of these scandals were accompanied by a lack of transparency so severe that 47 of Mr. Obama’s 73 inspectors general signed an open letter in 2014 decrying the administration’s stonewalling of their investigations.
One reason for Mr. Obama’s penchant for secrecy is his habit of breaking rules—from not informing Congress of the dubious prisoner swap involving Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the Taliban, to violating restrictions on cash transfers to Iran as part of a hostage-release deal.
No, obviously you don't. Talking down to African Americans is part and parcel of the Democrats way of doing business. You don't need to worry, Auntie Hillary will take care of you. The fact that you feel it is acceptable for one race to puposely talk down to another (while trying to get their votes) speaks miles.
"Auntie" Hillary? Care to explain yourself there, Spikegary?!
When the heaven you EVER hear a black person call Mrs. Clinton, Hillary, "Auntie"? Your projection (in anger) speaks volumes.
Black Americans determine when they are being talked down to, Spikegary. Furthermore, if they have to come to conservatives to be TOLD they are being talked down to - what the. . .heaven is that?!!
If you want to support black people help them keep their children save from police who shoot them graveyard cold and dead with or without a gun!
Okay, you "got" me! Look, I'm even emoting. . .
A lot of black Americans DID decide the democrats are talking down to them. That's why there's a walk away movement and Trumps numbers with black men are increasing.
You're wasting your time. These are hard core Trump supporters. Facts aren't necessarily important to them and please don't get me started with how overjoyed they are at losing all decency and moral principles. They consider incivility a winning strategy. These are not Americans. They are Trump loyalists.
The so-called, Walk Away Movement is a thing because there are to be generous percentages of non-monolithic black voters out and about needing a political home—go after them and give them shelter. And, be careful what you wish for. Young black republicans can be an energetic force to be reckoned with-when and if double-crossed!
Meanwhile, they will be behind closed doors. . . .
And, when you build it and they come. . .tell me,. . . who among the conservatives will decide to move out first?
I did not particularly like George H. W. Bush when he became president.
But not long after President Bush uttered these memorable words and I never forgot the phrase: "A thousand points of light."
I was not expecting that.
At that moment, George H.W. Bush caught my eye as someone interesting and genuine. . . . He has remained that way with me since.
President George W. Bush uttered a phrase unfamiliar to me in a speech that I will never forget, "Compassionate Conservatism." Now, those words were already out in about in the conservative sphere long before President G. W. Bush delivered them in office as a philosophy and its effect on the country was complex. But, Bush tried to show some heart, keep his better angels aloft, and demonstrated a mixture of principles. The Republican Party was stalking around for a bull with sharp horns.
Stab something already.
In 2016, a scandal-driven baggage-topping real estate developer told hard-core republicans he could put a stake in the heart of compassion, and give them and this country what other leaders could not, would not bring themselves to do to innocent and loving people such as we are: He would unleash raw conservatism. A decent percentage of conservatives inked 'the deal,' they struck this bargain with Trump and now the country is scandal-poxed and itswhole head is sick!
Except the one problem with all this political spiel.....
Most hard core liberals wouldn't know compassion if it hit them in the ass with a bass fiddle....
They do not want to lift anyone up, just want to keep them down and subservient thinking they are being lifted up....
The whole closed fist in the air thinking.....
Promise the world but give them nothing.....
and yes, the country is scandal-poxed because of it...
"I'll have those N*****S voting democrat for the next 200 years" --Lyndon B Johnson (explaining his support for the CRA when most democrats strenuously opposed it.)
Oh sorry I didn't know you were the deny facts type. Juat curioiuis are you still telling people they can keep their doctor too?
Yes. (Dryly.) I am sure you have a running tally long as day is long. Keep those cymbals clashing, you here me. /s
And shall we remark on the largest scandal of all in republican storytelling: President Obama is a Kenyan who served as the American president.
He rolled his eyes because your list is nothing but a bunch of conservative hot air.
State Department email: Hillary found "careless" but no evidence server was ever compromised.
Operation Fast and Furious: Started under GW Bush. There is ZERO evidence that the gun found in the raid linked to Fast and Furious was the gun that killed Brian Terry.
IRS abuses: Lois Lerner was appointed by GW Bush and both conservative and liberal 501c3's and c4's were targeted and none of the groups were ever denied their tax exempt status.
Benghazi: 8 Partisan Republican investigations over 4 years and the conclusion? No wrongdoing on the part of the State department or Hillary Clinton. President Obama called it terrorism the VERY NEXT DAY. The conservative narrative that it was some cover-up is total bullshit.
Hacking: How is that supposed to be Obamas fault? And the claim the director took no action is completely baseless.
Veterans Affairs: Obama inherited a broken veterans system being overloaded with new patients from the two unfunded unnecessary wars GW Bush and Republicans started. Obama increased funding for veterans by 70% to try and fix a disaster but that fix didn't happen overnight.
So all you have is a load of baseless faux conservative outrage which the only proper response to is a roll of the eyes. My shredding of your conservative fantasies will no doubt fall on deaf ears, conservatives don't want truth, facts or reason, they just want to have their ears tickled, to be told they're right, that they're still relevant and that they're valuable to American society but I refuse to lie to them.
You obviously confuse facts with specualtion often.
Is President Obama a Kenyan and is Donald Trump a 'silent' birther, 96WS6? Talk about what you believe sometimes. It can only help, right?
I never claimed anything about where he was born. You did.
Oh you are THAT conservative who has never 'partaken' of this specific smear against President Obama? Okay, I stand corrected. /s
BTW, have you even been made aware of the so-called "birther movement' which took hold for eight years of the Obama Administration? Interesting how FAST this dropped off after January 20, 2017!
Very, very, tricky those propaganda games.
Can't open the YouTube, but did it have anything to do with many Americans being called "deplorables"?
Nope, it's just Hillary herself going into a routine that became unacceptable to modern society sometime after Amos and Andy went off the air.
Amos and Andy? Like Hillary Clinton, I thought it was like James Cleveland? Are you moving the goalpost? What not outrageous enough so you have to invent. . . for the man who can not see the video?
Buzz, the youtube video is named:
TPM TV
66K subscribers
I invented nothing. I just didn't sugarcoat or rationalize her behavior.
You picked your hero; can you be okay with letting some black people pick a hero too? OMG! Already.
Do all black people have to despise Hillary Clinton because conservatives throw tomatoes at her and want to see her in captivity? Cmon already!! In the church, the clergy stood up and applauded her display—happens in a church somewhere on the planet everyday where a speaker is doing a fair to mid-land impression of another person and the assemblage is going, "Amen!"
I think what offends you (most) is Ms. Clinton can pull it off clean and 'your guy' in the same situation would get *crickets.*
Here it is in pictures:
To listen to videos click the 'on-board' titles!
Good for you! Free country and all that! Sorry. Seeing freedom at work chokes me up just a little.
Why?