Biden faces backlash for saying 'America was an idea' that 'we've never lived up to'
By: Joseph Wulfsohn (Fox News)
Is President Joe really willing to tell our children the factual history? The real history is that the Democratic Party has been the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. The real history is that the Democratic Party tried to destroy the country by fighting a Civil War. The historical facts are that the Democratic Party is responsible for the racial divisions our country is experiencing today.
Joe Biden needs to understand that the Democratic Party has been the disappointment; not the United States. Even now the Democratic Party is holding the country hostage just as it has since the party was founded in the 1820s.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Joe Biden was facing intense backlash Wednesday night for referring to America as an "idea" that "we've never lived up to."
The Democratic nominee shared a clip from his interview on the podcast "Unlocking Us with Brene Brown," which was released earlier in the day.
"America was an idea, an idea," Biden said. "'We hold these truths to be self evident.' We've never lived up to it, but we've never walked away from it before. And I just think we have to be more honest. Let our kids know, as we raise them, what actually did happen. Acknowledge our mistakes so we don't repeat them."
Biden summarized the remark by tweeting, "America was an idea. We've never lived up to it but we've never walked away from it before."
Biden was slammed by critics, including members of the Trump 2020 Campaign.
"Joe Biden's closing argument is that America has always been a disappointment," Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh reacted.
"@JoeBiden Where have you been for 47 years? America is the greatest nation in the world. We stand for freedom and opportunity for all. Our nation is filled with strong, innovative and hard-working individuals who love this nation & don't want to fundamentally transform it," Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp wrote.
"47 years, 0 accomplishments. Americans deserve better than your apology tour," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tweeted.
"When my father lay wounded on a beach in the Pacific defending his country in World War II, America more than lived up to her promise. When Americans walked on the moon, we were the brightest star in the firmament. If you weren't owned by China, you might love this country, too," actor James Woods scolded the former VP.
"'We've never lived up to it'? Speak for yourself, man!" Center for American Liberty founder and trial lawyer Harmeet Dhillon exclaimed. "This immigrant is so grateful to be an American — and I never diss her or take her for granted."
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
President Joe's party has opposed the idea of the United States since the founding of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been the disappointment; not the United States.
That's the actual history that President Joe wants us to ignore.
You are so right on. It is the democrat party that has not lived up to becoming apart of a more perfect union. America has been doing mostly fine since our founding up to now.
What a one sided dog shit vile opinion
The real history is that white conservative Christians were the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow.
The real history is that those state's rights WCCs tried to destroy the country by starting a civil war.
the historic facts are that WCCs of all parties are responsible for the racial divisions our country is still experiencing.
You need to understand that people of all parties have been a disappointment since the First Continental Conference.
Talk about a one sided dog shit vile opinion
. There was no "Christian" party.
In fact, the anti-slavery movement both in the US and globally was overtly Christian Without Christians making the moral case against slavery, it probably exists here and everywhere else in the world.
Segregation and Jim Crow, were of course championed by progressive Democrats like President Woodrow Wilson. Even Taeshi Coats, a Democratic partisan of the first order, realizes how ignorant and unsupportable the claim that it was just "conservatives" who were racist. As he wrote:
"The white supremacists in his book are, indeed, for the most part, Southern. But they also are very much married to to the prospect of progressive liberal reform. It may break our brains a bit to imagine, say, a Southern white supremacist backing railroad unions. But that's actual history."
But many progressives don't want actual history. They want to be spoon fed simplistic narrative of good and evil where their "side" is always right. That the first progressive President re segregated the Federal government and it took a conservative like Harding to end Federal segregation breaks their brains, so they ignore it.
at WCCs of all parties are responsible for the racial divisions our country is still experiencing
What a one sided, dog shit paternalistic opinion. No other race has agency? they aren't responsible for their own racist behavior? How offensive.
Imagine claiming it's WGC's pushing racial identity politics.. Laughable.
No one said there was, but in order to vote, one had to be a male landowner in good standing - how else would you interpret that Sean?
According to others, this nation was founded on Christian principles, under God who granted us our rights
( and apparently our ability to make Amendments to the Constitution and those inalienable rights )
You said "white conservative Christians were the party"
one had to be a male landowner in good standing
While it's impossible for me to guess what time and place you are referencing , what does that have to with White Conservative Christians? Are you arguing all the Founders were Conservatives? Christians?
iAccording to others, this nation was founded on Christian principles, under God who granted us our rights
So what?
Sean,
This goes back to the very roots of our history. We would not be a country without the removal of the slavery clause from the Declaration of Independence. It was the entire south that would have walked away from it and since Hancock had decided that the vote for independence had to be unanimous, the northern states bowed to the southern states. Have you ever looked at the delegates from the southern states? They were all wealthy landowners. So please try to tell me that the issue isn't right from the roots of this nation.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about and how it relates to what I wrote.
I went back to this to try and figure out your point and I still don't know what it was, but your facts are wrong too.
We would not be a country without the removal of the slavery clause from the Declaration of Independence
That's simply false. Independence was voted on before that clause was removed during the redrafting of the Declaration by the Committee.
t was the entire south that would have walked away from it
That's not true at. Per Thomas Jefferson, only Georgia and South Carolina (which still imported slaves)as well as some unidentified northern states objected to the language about the slave trade and they'd already voted for independence.
The clause was not a threat to disunion, and their was no unified north verse south fight over it. Wherever you got that from is peddling an overly dramatic version of what happened.
Split’s statement that the White Conservative Christians were the supporters of both slavery and Jim Crow is true. The Confederate states were overwhelmingly Protestant. In the lead up to the Civi War, the Protestant denominations split North/South, against/for slavery. The country was mostly Christian, so of course Christians were also on the anti-slavery side. But, the Southern Protestants had modified Christianity to allow for the ownership, abuse, and murder of black people. Preachers who pointed out that this was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus were driven out; some were murdered.
At the time of the civil war, the Democratic Party was made up of the northern liberal cities, the southern conservatives, and the rest of the country was largely moderate. The Republican Party was small, and not very conservative. In fact, here is a synopsis of the Republican Party’s platform as late as the mid-1950s:
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities
2. Protect Social Security
3. Provide asylum for refugees
4. Extend minimum wage
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union, but allow right to work for workers who don’t want to join a union
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex
Except for right to work, these items are what the current Democratic Party works toward, and the current Republican Party works against.
The fact that the White Conservative Christians were in the Democratic Party at the time does not damn the Democratic Party. If it helps you in some way to label them Democrats, then do so, but you must also label them conservatives. They would not move to the Republican Party for quite some time because it was the Party of Lincoln, a president who fought a war of aggression against the south.
And so were white progressives! The mistake, which you seem to be missing, is beleving that only southern conservatives were the racists.
The Confederate states were overwhelmingly Protestant.
Great! Slavery predates Christianity and existed for thousands of years in non Christian societies. Christians (and others) owned slaves. Christians, explicitly religious ones, led the abolitionist movement both here and abroad. Look up Wilbur Wiberforce and his work in England.
he country was mostly Christian, so of course Christians were also on the anti-slavery sid
And, so of course, they were on the pro-slavery side too!
he time of the civil war, the Democratic Party was made up of the northern liberal cities, the southern conservatives, and the rest of the country was largely moderat
Again, read your history, progressives in good standing were racists too! Look up how how effusive FDR was in praising the virulent racist Theodore Bilbo as a good liberal.
The fact that the White Conservative Christians were in the Democratic Party at the time does not damn the Democratic Party.
Who said it does? White Progressive Christians who loved Jim Crow and segregation were also Democrats in good standing. What damns the democratic party is not that it had white members, or conservative members, but that it supported Jim Crow.
it helps you in some way to label them Democrats, then do so, but you must also label them conservatives.
That would be a lie, then. Even Ta-Neshi Coates admits that. Why would you bother with an argument that's so easily refuted? It's not like the first progressive democratic President's racism is some secret or obscure fact. The Progressive Woodrow Wilson literally re-segregated the Federal government, for fucks sake. No sane person calls him a conservative.
First of all, he's not talking about racists in general, Split's talking about slavery & Jim Crow.
Secondly, yes, there were progressive racists. Yes, there were anti-slavery Christians. Yes, there were black slave owners. The point is that the overwhelming majority of people responsible for wanting to preserve slavery and promoting Jim crow were white, conservative Christians. And yes, in the past, many of these people were democrats. The false point that conservatives hope to make here is that liberals/progressives were responsible for slavery & Jim Crow -- this is false.
I know. That's why I brought up progressives who supported those things.
erwhelming majority of people responsible for wanting to preserve slavery and promoting Jim crow were white, conservative Christians
The majority were white and Christian because the overwhelming majority were white and Christian. The idea that the overwhelming majority were "conservative" is preposterous. IF the overwhelming majority were conservatives, why did they elect so many liberals? That's not how it works. Liberals vote for liberals. And racist liberal democrats prospered in the South and the north.
I mean, who do you think were the ones throwing stones at Martin Luther King Jr when he tried to desegregate staunchly white democratic neighborhoods in Chicago?
to make here is that liberals/progressives were responsible for slavery & Jim Crow -- this is false.
They were just as responsible as the conservatives. Both sides supported it.
Exactly Sean, which for cogent adults doesn't conflate to 'Christian party'. Please, just stop.
Believe it or not, there was a time when people voted for the person they felt was best for the job rather than straight party line. The Democratic party dwarfed the Republican party then, and as I said before, southern conservatives were not going to join the Party of Lincoln. They stayed in the Democratic party because they believed it to be the best way to influence government. To pretend that a significant number of southern, white, evangelical Christians were liberals should be too silly to argue. If they had a significant liberal contingent, would we have had a civil war?
Let's look at voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voting against it was a conservative position, like voting against LGBT marriage. Southern refers for the former Confederate states. Notice how the conservative position is overwhelmingly dominate in the former Confederate states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Notice how the former Confederate states had a tiny number of Republicans relative to Democrats. Now those numbers are reversed. So they got over their aversion to Lincoln. They were always conservatives, now they have a party that reflects that rather than being mixed as the Democrats had been before the migration.
You don't seem to understand the argument. No one is claiming southerners didn't oppose the civil right act, so pointing that out doesn't help your cause. Let me make this very simple.
Liberal southerners (supporters of the New Deal, those who supported LBJ's war on Poverty) voted against the Civil Rights Act. So did conservatives. Understand? Supporting Jim Crow and opposing the Civil Rights Act was done by both liberals and conservatives in the South. To claim otherwise ignores history.
hey were always conservatives,
Again, you are ignoring history. The south elected both conservative and liberal supporters of Jim Crow. You keep ignoring the easily verifiable reality. (Woodrow Wilson, most famously) in favor of overly simplistic pronouncements that you can't support.
What is the point of all this? What is it hoping to share or gain? And which civil rights act are you referring to?
Fake, simplistic, partisan history bothers me so I correct it.
And which civil rights act are you referring to?
The Civil Rights Acts referenced by Jumpdrive.
It seems
to be more promotion of 1619 propaganda and more denigration and not picking at every slight compromise with perfection imperfection of our exceptional 1776 genuine founding.
TO PASS H.R. 6400, THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
Totals
unknown. unknown Required. Source: VoteView.com .
Ideology Vote Chart
And what are you talking about? Please clarify.
Could you please repeat that in standard English? TIA
(I was going to reply but then I realized I couldn't because.....)
Its true!
In fact, not only the Democratic Party, but curiously enough, so have the actual Founding fathers themselves!!!!
That's true, some of the founders did oppose the idea of a United States. There was opposition to the Constitution among the founders of the country.
But the Democratic Party was created well after the Constitution had been ratified. The Democratic Party was created for the purpose of protecting the institution of slavery. As the founder of the Democratic Party and first elected Democratic President, Andrew Jackson owned more slaves than all subsequent Presidents combined. Democrats protected the institution of slavery by manipulating the electoral college, by controlling the confirmation of nominees, and by loading the court system with judges willing to interpret the Constitution to protect the institution of slavery.
The Democratic Party is utilizing the same type of politics to protect the institution of abortion as Democrats used to protect the institution of slavery. And Democrats are using the same political arguments. The unborn cannot take care of themselves, the unborn aren't quite human, the unborn do not have rights. Democrats were making the same arguments about African slaves.
Democratic slavers would be very familiar with the Democrat's politics of pro-choice. Democratic slavers were pro-choice on the issue of slavery, too.
What a house built of nonsensical non-sequitars and jumping to conclusions you hav there. What's clear to me is that comment reads like a summarized version of some construct built by somebody else.
My god, man. Stop trying to indulge your patriarchal opinions about women and their bodies and health. We don't have your beliefs, we want to make our own health decisions and are really really happy we are voting out the misogynist party next week. Everything about women's reproduction seems to attract men who are afraid of losing their power. They make laws, they mess with all aspects of contraception, they deny healthcare but want to force birth for every fertilized egg and will never ever have the opportunity to know what that means for women who are forced to do so. And same people give zero fucks about the kids already born. Mind your own damn business.
Backlash from this 'president's' supporters maybe, who cares?
The "Some Pigs Are More Equal" part of the gop.
Backlash?
If you ask me, this whole kerfuffle is more like Balderdash.
(Or perhaps even a severe case of Poppycock!!!)
Politicians of both parties are constantly expressing their views-- and many people disagree.
Very common actually-- so are we going to use words like "backlash"...poor grammar actually.
Backlash?
If you ask me, this whole kerfuffle is more like Balderdash.
(Or perhaps even a severe case of Poppycock!!!)
Politicians of both parties are constantly expressing their views-- and many people disagree.
Very common actually-- so are we going to use words like "backlash"...poor grammar actually.
P>S: I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets more than a bit of backlash from other Newstalkers.
(P.S: No, Balderdash was not one of Santa's reindeers!!!
)
Our ideal of equality under the law has never been fully lived up to as every poor, minority or gay person who ever lived in America can attest. We may have been more equal than some places, butt never our ideal!
That is why we must keep striving and struggling. ""The arch of a moral universe is long but it always bends towards justice" - Martin Luther King.
And now, all those so privileged they are still incensed or outraged by Joe Biden's plain and simple words may put that into their lousy crack pipes and smoke it!
We will never achieve the justice Martin Luther King sought while the Democratic Party maintains racial distinctions. The Democratic Party treats the Black population as if it were different; with different needs and aspirations than other Americans. The racial politics of the Democratic Party doesn't treat the Black population as an equal part of the United States.
Nonsense!
That is why I never bother engaging with you...
Why? [[delete]]
Yup, a complete waste of time.
You cannot deny that the Democratic Party creates specific legislation just for the Black population. Why isn't that systemic institutional racism?
How is being treated differently, by law, any form of equality?
Yes, I do deny that. Name these recent laws which Democrats made specific to blacks...
Last chance. So, do be intellectually honest.
Democrats propose $350 billion in aid for minority communities in next COVID-19 bill
.
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS INTRODUCE BILL TO PROTECT MINORITY BUSINESSES AMID COVID
You're focusing on the goodies that Democrats are giving the Black population. But that ignores that the Democratic Party is treating the Black population differently, by law. The Democratic Party is buying acceptance of unequal treatment for the Black population.
The Democratic Party is telling the Black population that they are different and need to be treated differently, by law. The Democratic Party is buying acceptance of systemic institutionalized racism. And the Black population is accepting that different treatment as some form of justice.
Minorities are disproportionately affected by Co-Vid19 so what's the problem?
You appear to be making the assumption that "minority" means Black Americans only.
Minorities include a lot of groups like Latinos, American Indians, Coptic Egyptians, etc.
If you have solid evidence of unequal treatment by law, by all means contact the ACLU and challenge those laws
in court.
What about Black people who do not live in a Black community?
Everyone is claiming that public money flowing into Black communities is some form of justice. But aren't Democrats using money to maintain a de facto form of segregation? Democrats throwing money at Black communities has supported de facto segregation that is acceptable by both the Black population and white population.
Democrats are paying the Black population to remain in Black communities. And that form of segregation is acceptable to the white population, too. Why isn't that systemic institutionalized racism?
One example, of many, is how Barack Obama (again) altered his real speech pattern by changing it to his fake "southern black accent" yesterday when speaking to blacks in Philadelphia.
Er' the meaning is in the wording: "minority/ities." As contrasted with the word: "majority." Let me give you an example you might appreciate.
Today in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee Republican Majority moved Judge Amy Cohen Barrett out of the committee and on to a vote by the Majority republic senate - without a single, democratic Minority vote of support.
Were you a judiciary committee or senate democrat right now or a minority in society, you might appreciate this special dynamic of being heard but not listened to by the majority and the problems, issues, and dilemmas (of a lifetime) it presents.
And you are basking in white privilege. Just ask Mitch McConnell who is sitting on legislation that can help not only minorities but the majority too, because he has determined that he can get more out of the citizenry if, and only if, he and this president can send the citizenry out (like good little peons) into the ravaging fire of Covid-19 blazing across the land.
It should not escape observation, that 'out of nowhere' last March, Donald and Mitch joined Nancy, Steve, and Tyrone in finding sufficient funding to send money out to the public which did not even know it existed to request.
When medical science determined that the coronavirus was doing more harm to minorities than to the white majority, Donald and Mitch "customarily" lost interest not only in helping fund relief, but in the virus altogether!
White privilege hard at work. What else could it be? Will you try to convince me (and others) that if science had determined the white populace was disproportionately affected by this virus ravaging it that Donald and Mitch would be "hands off"?
I think we all know that would be untrue, and a waste of time.
Are you really going to play that bar game? Are you really going to ignore civil rights legislation since 1964?
Has everyone really become that comfortable with Democrats treating the Black population as something different than the rest of the United States?
Maybe. Aren't Democrats paying the Black population enough to accept that white privilege?
Is that a protest of injustice or a strike to get more money? Seems to me the complaint is all about the money. Will Democrats giving the Black population more money make being treated differently more acceptable?
What is the price to accept being treated differently?
What about them?
You talk a lot of nonsense which is why I don't like to even respond to you.
I just like to point out your nonsense.
Black people who do not live in Black communities are 'them'. How appropriate. That's exactly how Democrats want you to think about 'them'.
Is that a rebuff? It is weak. Don't pretend with me, Nerm_L. I will talk you down about it. If the Black population seems to be "special" to conservatives, it is because conservatives won't reject the class distinctions and throw-back mentality that serves people with wealth, status, and power.
Or do I need remind you Donald recently and continues to shout out " bargaining " with what he obviously misread as a white suburban women wish to segregate themselves from other rank and file people (read as - the poor / minorities ).
Innocent appearing statement on its 'face,' but completely ignores the commonality of poor people wanting to live in good "suburbs" too and to escape l ife-long home-ownership LOCK-OUT and ' RED-LINING.
You have got to be kidding. He's a black man talking to black people and you think he was talking down to him. And I didn't hear a southern accent and why would he? When did Philadelphia become southern?
It amazes me how people will try to find flaw in anything they can.
Get him to care about 'hip-hop.' That's the path in. /s.
Easy on possible skin damaging 'products'!
He can have "all-around" appeal then, yes?! Yeah - that's the ticket. There you go. No charge for the advice.
Like SP said, it's not just black folks who are affected disproportionately. . .
"Black people who do not live in Black communities are 'them'. How appropriate. That's exactly how Democrats want you to think about 'them'."
WTF?
What is that even supposed to mean?
Again, nonsense.
White privilege hard at work. What else could it be? Oh, it's true. It's true. Conservatives would not let Obama or any other minority even TRY to run for president or receive a "mulligan" from the 'Church' of all places had he been caught talking about grabbing somebody else by the coochie. White privilege gets you there, for sure.
The number of white people living in poverty is almost double the number of Black people living in poverty. But the percentage of the Black population living in poverty is more than double the percentage of the white population living in poverty.
For white people living in poverty that's bad luck or bad choices. For Black people living in poverty that is some sort of injustice that must be treated differently. Black poverty must be addressed with specially designed programs, targeted assistance, and institutionalized racial preferences.
White privilege, at its core, is about treating the Black population differently. The civil rights programs being demanded by the Black population are actually sustaining white privilege. The Black population is demanding to be treated differently, under law, which makes white privilege acceptable for both the Black population and white population.
So, you explain to me how to fix racial problem when the Black population is doing everything it can to make white privilege acceptable. Explain to me how legally being treated differently is some form of equality.
Growth and development, please. Simplistic 'outbursts' won't get us where we need to go.
Digressing?
Why is it necessary to speak differently to Black people? Why would Barack Obama need to behave differently with Black voters than white voters?
Why is it necessary for politicians to treat Black people differently than other people in the United States?
Must have been the audio on your TV, man.
must also be nice to be able to unsee all of the white people there, lol.
You're a hoot, "man".
is an expression of black people wherever they exist in the country, Nerm. It is a 'state' not a location, per se. For example, I am a homosexual, black, male living in the suburbs, in a mixed community. I still get the "black community" reference, because it is "me too." That is, anything done or not done for that matter on behalf of the black community will assert or neglect itself for me as well as another who lives in the "projects" or "ghetto."
No wonder people think the gop is racist and especially racist against black Americans. What in hell does that have to do with poor, minority and gay people suffering under a system which has historically been stacked against them? Trying to give the historically repressed communities a hand up has zero to do with what Biden was saying. Nothing!
America has never ever fully realized its founding principle of true equality under the law for all people. Perhaps that is impossible but it is totally cool to acknowledge these facts and forever strive to do better.
Some people cannot be mollified. Argue with yourself. I don't play silly dishonest games!
Try this 'old' and running debate. It won't fully answer the question you posed, but will give some depth when the answer presents itself:
James Baldwin vs. William Buckley: 1965 Cambridge University’s Union Hall (excerpt):
(Finally,)
Untrue. The Black population is not demanding to be treated differently, we are being treated differently by conservatives . For example: Senator Lindsey Graham recently stated this:
Lindsey Graham is treating black liberals differently, period. He is prejudiced against blacks and I will include prejudiced against other peoples who are not conservative in their daily lives.
What becomes of the rights and privileges of a liberal to be oneself in some conservatives frame of consciousness? These people are to be effectively stripped of their rights and privileges.
Oh please do give me YOUR definition of 'systemic institutional racism'? Please do so in summary and not in a soliloquy.
I asked why treating the Black population differently, under law, isn't systemic institutional racism?
I'm not defining systemic institutional racism with my question. And you are avoiding answering that question.
But, programs to lift up historically oppressed communities are not examples of racism. Laws that discriminate against minorities are.
That is the basis for my questions and comments. The focus is on the Black population because that is the context of Joe Biden's claim that the United States is an idea we have not lived up to. History shows that Joe Biden's Democratic Party really was the political party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. The Democratic Party deliberately interfered with the idea of the United States.
That same Democratic Party that interfered with the idea of the United States has assumed the mantle of civil rights. But scrutiny does show that the Democrat's civil rights treats the Black population differently than others, by law. Democrats really have established specific programs, targeted assistance, requirements, and racial preferences in law. As an example, the school busing program was created specifically for the Black population. The Black population didn't have a choice with school busing.
Democrats have adopted high sounding language to describe treating the Black population differently, by law. Democrats tell us that we need to treat the Black population differently to overcome historical oppression and provide uplift so the Black population can participate in society on an equal basis. But historically it has been the Democratic Party that oppressed the Black population with slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow; not the United States.
How can Democrats intentionally and deliberately treating the Black population differently under law achieve any form of equality? Democrats tell us that treating the Black population differently, under law, is some sort of justice for past wrongs. The Black population accepts being treated differently because that different treatment provides benefits. How is that any form of equality?
The Democratic Party has treated the Black population differently since the Democratic Party was founded. The Democratic Party is still treating the Black population differently. How is that any form of equality?
Actually you didn't. My request was based on you original question.
BTW, would you perhaps have and example of a law which treats the Black population differently than it treats you or me that I could review?
Hence my request.
False. I asked you to cite your definition of "systemic institutional racism" because it's impossible to answer your question without understanding YOU concept of the phrase.
Please proceed.
Prove this statement. Source please.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with using the pronoun 'them' Nerm? Why assume some nefarious intent? Projecting?
That is an insult. Forgive me, but you do not know what you are talking about! The problem of being treated differently (unequally) is one such that had the 14th amendment been properly honored and respected there would not have existed a need for any separate civil rights acts, plural!
Likewise, the 15th amendment issued forth voting rights to all citizens without regard to race, color, or servitude. The 19th amendment extended voting rights based on sex.
The question for you is this:
If you say that 'merica honored it intent to have one standard of equality, what compelled the civil rights acts, plural and Voting Rights Act (1965) to need to come into existence?
I am about to ask Nerm the same thing. I need a definition from you Nerm for the phrase above. I ask, because you seem to wish to invert the regular logic involved to imply that Whites or another unknown class are lacking in privileges and rights that are without regard being given black people and other minorities.
And therefore it should come as no surprise that this absurd article is already getting more than its share of backlash itself!!!
Democrats established a systemic belief that African slaves were inferior, barbaric, uncivilized, were less than human, and had no rights. Democratic orators in the halls of Congress, men like John C. Calhoun, affirmed those systemic beliefs and advocated institutionalized slavery as a benevolent, beneficent civilized means of caring for those incapable of caring for themselves in a civilized manner.
The Democratic Party established systemic institutionalized slavery. As founder of the Democratic Party and first elected Democratic President, Andrew Jackson owned more slaves than all the following Presidents combined. Democrats used the institution of slavery to manipulate the electoral college, control the confirmation of nominees, and load the courts with judges friendly toward the institution of slavery.
Democrats will declare themselves offended by such reminders. Democrats will point to having thrown the Dixiecrats out of the party 50 years ago. But Democrats are utilizing the same politics to establish systemic beliefs and protect the institution of abortion. The unborn cannot take care of themselves, the unborn are not quite human, the unborn have no rights. Democrats are endowing pregnant women with the same rights that Democrats endowed upon slave owners. Democratic slavers would understand pro-choice politics. Democratic slavers were pro-choice on the issue of slavery.
Since its beginning, the Democratic Party has advocated systemic beliefs that treat people differently. The Democratic Party institutionalizes those systemic beliefs by creating laws and loading the courts with judges who share those systemic beliefs. The Democratic Party has always established systemic beliefs in distinct, often stark, differences in people. And the Democratic Party has always institutionalized those systemic beliefs. The Democratic Party has not changed since the party was founded 200 years ago.
Democrats will establish a systemic belief that you cannot take care of yourself. Democrats will institutionalize those systemic beliefs, in law. The Democratic Party utilizes the politics of systemic institutionalized distinctions to justify treating people differently under the law. Democrats will endow themselves with the rights of a benefactor and take rights away from you. That is the 200 year history of the Democratic Party.
Complete and utter swill. Is that all you have?
When I first saw you on this forum I thought you might be a reasonable person. That perception has been steadily eaten away as I began to read more of your offerings. .
Your king has no clothes.
The naked history of the Democratic Party does not conform to systemic institutionalized beliefs.
Now is the time to make a choice. Defend the naked history of the Democratic Party - or - take progressive steps to create something better. The idea of the United States will not be achieved by defending the political past of the Democratic Party.
Nope, your 'emperor' has no clothes.
That's a crap load of blather for a non-answer Nerm.
You know as well as I do that there are NO laws that treat the Black population differently.
You've also proven incapable of defining the term 'systemic institutional racism'. Or is it just pure deflection on your part?
Since you can't define 'systemic institutional racism', how can you be so fucking sure?
I am expected to wade through 50 years of Federal regulations, appropriation bills, and laws to demonstrate something that is as evident as the nose on my face.
I am expected to ignore that the Black population has its own, separate column in government reporting on Census, economics, education, crime, and anything else the Federal government reports. Look at reported data, the emphasis on racial distinction is systemically prevalent throughout government institutions. The Black population is treated differently in how we measure government performance.
We are told to follow the evidence. Well, the evidence separates the Black population into a distinct category that is compared to other distinct categories of population throughout the data that is used to guide government policy and expenditures. The racial segregation in the data is used to justify affirmative action, targeted assistance, allocation of grants, and provisions written into law.
I am expected to ignore Democratic politicians, prancing about on the stage, pointing to that segregated institutional data to make promises specifically directed toward those distinct populations.
Segregation is alive and well in all Federal institutions. And that segregation is used politically to treat the Black population differently under law.
All he has is projection and deflection.
If that's what it takes for you to find ONE iota of evidence for the bullshit you posted, YES.
Yet you and I both know that NONE exists.
BTFW, YOU stated a LAW so please stop blathering about regulations and policies.
Can you even define racism?
Racial favoritism, without animus toward other races, is also racism. Isn't that the idea behind white privilege? The argument is that white people favor white people and that excludes other races. There isn't an intent to cause harm to other races but the racial preference unintentionally harms other races. Racial favoritism doesn't mean there is hatred for other races. Racism simply means treating people differently based upon racial distinctions.
When a universal belief that a specific race must be treated differently becomes embedded in all facets of society then that is a systemic belief. The belief that the Black population must be treated differently to correct past oppression and denial of rights has become an universal belief. That universal belief that the Black population must be treated differently to correct past oppression has been embedded in all facets of society and has become a systemic belief.
When a systemic belief that a specific race must be treated differently becomes the basis for laws, regulations, and legal decisions then that systemic belief has been institutionalized. The systemic belief that the Black population must be treated differently to correct past oppression has been institutionalized by civil rights laws, policy enforced by regulation, and guidance for legal decisions.
Systemic institutionalized racism means there is a universal belief that a specific race must be treated differently and that universal belief must be institutionally enforced.
Like it or not, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is also a type of systemic institutionalized racism.
More nonsensical blather.
You could have saved a crap load of meaningless blather by just posting that in the first place.
No Nerm, that doesn't qualify by YOUR standard. YOU stated:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does NOT single out the Black population Nerm.
Your argument is a total failure.
Read this and then get back to us informed.
You asked for one.
Senate passes bill to save funding for black colleges
Now I know you are pulling from an outside source, because of how you are attempting to layer democrats, slavery, and abortion into one fold.
Let me help you Nerm. We don't need a lecture from you on privacy rights for women or how minorities should define "plantation-life." Conservatives, by definition, want retro existence. The status quo.
Women and minorities can't afford a lack of progress. Our strengths lie in diversity. Not bloc-thinking.
Now and again, some conservatives should ponder what it means to be part of the "same-ness" of this republican party. Why? Because Donald Trump is a liar, a cheat, and thief. This means Donald as party-head, gives the republican party Trump sameness. That is not a good 'look.'
Worse, the republican party will catch earthly hell trying to unseat him!
I'm not a Republican. And I'm not commenting from a conservative point of view. I'm pointing out that institutional government is perpetuating segregation and racism. I am pointing out that Joe Biden is using that institutional segregation and racism for political advantage.
If I am creating cognitive dissonance then perhaps you need to reevaluate your beliefs. Maybe reality isn't what you've been spoon fed.
And that is not what any court has determined is happening with Black or other minorities in the U.S. That is, it is not skin color, or disposition of minorities which courts and governance are striving to correct. The aforementioned authorities from time to time, seek to remove deficiencies constantly 'deployed' into local, state, and federal policy/ies by some conservatives and their acting "agencies" whom seek to wield power, influence, and wealth over groups/races within this nation's citizenry.
Nerm, I see you are working (hard) to get this twisted. But, it won't work. I will do my best to untangle the "mess" as it pushes forward.
Nonsense. Your statements are some ideological academic set of contrast thinking from conservative think-tanks. I, maybe we, used to hear it more often during the affirmative action debates in conservative circles and from Justices Thomas and Scalia (RIP). Now we have its "sister" contrast 'the democrat (sic) plantation' currently running and attempting to latch on to blacks and other minorities with its sound and fury.
Nothing "independent" about the idealogy. Its been categorized already as all or nothing -"stinkin thinkin.'
As for the offensive insult about reality, I reject the attempt at it. So now what?
I'm surprised you haven't alleged that I am accusing minorities of being racist. But that isn't what I am saying.
What I am saying is that minorities can also benefit from systemic institutionalized racism. People trying to defend the Democratic Party are arguing that some types of racism are better than others. Democrats aren't trying to eliminate racism. In fact the political future of the Democratic Party depends upon perpetuating racism.
The Democratic Party is as racist today as it was 200 years ago. Democrats are only telling us that their type of racism today is 'good racism'. Democrats are still treating people of different races differently because of those racial distinctions. Democrats have succeeded in achieving acceptance of segregation by the Black population. The Black population is a separate, distinct demographic with different needs and aspirations than other Americans. Just listen to Joe Biden, he'll explain how Democrats will treat the Black population differently. Joe Biden will explain that Black people who do not vote for Democrats aren't really Black. That attitude towards the Black population slips out so easily.
Let's deal with the "anecdotal" blunder which occurred between Joe Biden and Charlamagne tha God in brief. It was a negligent statement and Joe should not have made it and he apologized for it. Now unless he makes the same mistake again-apology accepted. No more hay can be made of it.
I find it distracting and mildly offensive that you try to hoodwink me into discussing the democratic party and democrats apart from any statements from you about republicans and their "repertoire" of political tricks, deceptive practices, and disingenuousness.
How many of the 53 federal judge appointed by Donald Trump are Black?
Has Trump nominated diverse judges to the Appeals Court?
Were all the nominees to federal courts put forward by Trump (the Federalist Society) and approved by
Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell suitably qualified to serve all the people
or just some of the people?
The answers to such questions as these matter heavily in our the black majority decide to political reside and cast its fate!
Nerm, you wrote this: Democrats aren't trying to eliminate racism. The Democratic Party is as racist today as it was 200 years ago.
I could ask you to develop those assertions, but I won't. Our country has a past. A recorded history. In it the democratic party has not always been free of racists. But, history does record the events which led to racism decreasing, and draining out of the party! So your critique of the democratic party today is a distribution of misinformtion.
Trust Blacks and other minorities to let you know with fear or folly if the democratic party was unfit because of racism.
You are free to write your perspective as a "neutral bystander" indeed; however, the black majority does not have the luxury to stand on the sidelines volleying ideological wishful thinking. We are in the game. There practical considerations and dynamics matter greatly.
Wow, are you really so clueless that you don't know that people of all races go to HBCs?
Most voters will be voting on one or more of few key issues-- and rest assured, that is certainly not going to be one of them, LOL!!!
(That's assuming, of course that anyone can decipher the actual meaning of that convoluted sentence...)
sounds like old Joe does not like the USA, why would we want somebody that does like the country in charge?
President Joe is a globalist. President Joe believes in exploiting other races in poor countries. The ideals of the United States gets in the way. Joe Biden is a Democrat so that shouldn't be surprising.
President Joe is the best thing since white bread, any way you slice it.
Joe is honorable and an experienced statesman, butt for many him not being Trump is enough...
Joe Biden is a good man. Donald Trump is not.
The "BoBBSEY" Triples!
Those crazy kids from "DADDY KNOWS BEST."
"Trump Family Values!"
People know they are grifters. That is why all this Hunter Biden business on conservative media is making no impact.
I would bet that Rudy Giuliani has cost Trump more voters than Hunter Biden has cost Joe Biden.
Sound like Joe loves America and wants to keep moving towards that goal our founders set of becoming a more perfect union. A loving parent doesn't just ignore the wrongdoing of a child, they discipline that child and work to correct the flaws. America has done many great things in the last 240 years, but also many terrible things. To refuse to acknowledge those things isn't being loving, it's being stupid and callous, but then that seems to be the character of many Trump supporters so it's no wonder they find any constructive criticism too hard to take, their ego's are simply too fragile, like a little whiny child.
I agree. He’s been in the senate for almost 50 years and what has he done besides stand up for credit card companies? And now all of a sudden he’s ready to make American better? Gthoh biden. Go enjoy your last year or so while your mind still halfway functions.
Joe Biden sponsored the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate in 1994 which has been extended in every Administration since then until Trump's.
I'm not surprised that the Violence Against Women Act doesn't make an impression on YOU Tex.
gee, I am under the impression that violence against anyone is a crime.
is it different where you live?
Exactly. Once again singling out those whom the left considers need extra special protections. I'm all for frying the bastards who abuse women but I am also for frying those who abuse anyone.......A N Y O N E
Your reply merely illustrates that you have no fucking clue what the Violence Against Woman Act is about nor do you have an interest in educating yourself before posting.
exactly!!!
aw, is violence allowed under law in your state?
So you don't support enhanced penalties. Got ya Jim.
if penalties for assaults already exist. why do they need enhancing?
Do you think that asking utterly clueless questions about a topic that you are willfully uninformed about makes some kind of cogent point Tex?
if you can't answer, just say so.
You tell me Tex. Please explain the enhanced penalties for assaulting a Police Officer.
I don't bother answering obtuse questions Tex, I can only direct you to the VAWA and encourage you to read the fucking thing before you continue to make foolish comments.
Please explain the enhanced penalty for assaulting minors.
Please explain the enhanced penalty for assaulting an senior citizen.
police officer has what to do with violence against women?
are there special penalties for assaulting an officer that only apply if the victim is female?
Didn't say that and quit your incessant putting words in people's posts.
so, you can't answer, got it, expected
Please explain the enhanced penalty for sexually assaulting a minor.
Here's a twofer. Minors and seniors are considered helpless.
Curiously, laws against assault, assault and battery did not stop males from knocking the "heaven" out of their long-term girlfriends and wives, yes or no?
So what about female on female assault?
IF penalties for assaults already exist. why do they need enhancing?
If you can't answer, just say so.
I am too. However, the justice system sees a need for such a law to exist or it would not exist, yes or no? Lawyers have a snack of coming into the grey areas of stated laws to get their clients off. Thus, the new classifications 'pop' into being.
Clearly, everybody does not "get it" legally clear in their minds like you and me.
no one i know of claimed it did.
so, what point are you trying to make?
Didn't get mad just because I stated it more eloquently Jim.
So DO you support enhanced penalties or NOT?
do your own research, I am definitely not your flunky
So that is a "no." Thanks. Moving on. . . .
do you think enhanced penalties stop domestic abuse?
So AGAIN, do you support enhanced penalties for violence against minors and seniors or not Jim? Because it sure as hell didn't look like you do in your 5.3.5 post.
if you have no point, why ask?
The VAWA covered that form of violence.
I quoted YOUR comments Tex.
quoting me is one thing, and relating your comment to my post is another
The subject at the time was women. Although slowly enough to segue, you did a good job of moving the goal posts. Yes I do. But there is a big difference between a 5 year old and an 85 year old and women in general.
Your inability to relate them is on you, not I Tex.
[deleted]
Yet YOU said:
So YOU seem to have ONE idea of those that 'need extra special protections', namely minors and seniors, but begrudge those with different ideas. I thought you and yours were agin' that shit...
BTFW, enhanced penalties are only a small part of the protections and programs codified under the VAWA. Again, since it's pretty clear that neither you nor Tex have bothered to review it, I can only presume that you don't actually give a shit about what it does for at risk women and families in the US. More's the pity.
If you wish to talk about these laws "as is" we can continue. If you wish to gainsay the law you should consider appealing to our courts! Okay.
That would require some research; I am not a "flunky."
Thank you, Dulay!
What some conservatives argue against is the "reduction" of their group privileges and rights by other classifications of our society. (It never clues in to said conservatives that having someone assault, beat, batter, injure, maim, or kill "you" is not a liberty expressly granted to anybody in the constitution.) However, the aforementioned malevolent under the "Castle Rule Doctrine" which in practiced placed could place the abuser in legal control of everyone under his 'reign.'
"Somebodies" felt like they were losing control (rights and privileges for which they could be legally 'confronted") over their individual kingdom.
Yes, it would. I didn't call you a flunky.
i didn't even ask you to do any research--I asked your opinion.
Never mind, now, though.
See there you go again Tex.
NO enhanced penalty STOPS every crime.
Why single out domestic abuse?
Every state has enhanced penalties for crimes so we can presume that a thousands of legislators came to the conclusion that they are effective in some way, if for nothing else but as a deterrent.
Where?
I didn't claim it did. No penalty, enhanced or otherwise, can prevent people from doing what they choose to do. Who is arguing otherwise?
Why the fuck not?
You are free to assume or presume whatever you choose.
I personally believe that someone who is willing to commit assaults won't be deterred because they might face an enhanced penalty.
Then enhanced penalties of ANY kind for ANY crime are equally ineffective. Thanks for playing.
There you go again, claiming stuff I didn't say.
Is it just that much easier arguing what you want others to have said vs. what they actually do say?
No Tex, I'm not arguing anything, I'm STATING a fact and the fact that YOU didn't say it just bolsters it's accuracy.
You have no argument worth writing about.
Also enhanced sentencing sends a message to the receiver in the community - some actions rise to the level of being beyond the pale. It follows that courts will not tolerate or permit lawyers to "gray out" the heinousness of the stated conduct from having "the 'book' thrown at it!"
Considering that you imply to the room that you are above criminal activity (like I and many others here); what you believe about criminal behavior and penalty scaling, well. . . is better left to the well-versed professionals to establish.
I am entitled to MY opinion, so buzz off.
Aren't you the one that professed that is okay to steal a little bit or was that a different CB?
What? I know you didn't try to go there with me, K. D. Michigan. This nation, we all know and love, is a 'thought' process in the fine art of stealth. And, caveat emptor ("buyer beware)! And, slave exploitation. And, Asian-American exploitation. And, Latino-American exploitation. And, Black-American exploitation. And, other minority classification exploitation. And, women exploitation. And, LGBTQ exploitation. And, Native-American exploitation. Ad nauseam.
Come at it again and do bring your "perspective" next time,. . .please.
Along those lines, by Trump's use of the phrase MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, he's obviously implying that America is not currently great.
Many people are saying that trump's dissing of America is a real turn off.
"America was an idea, an idea," Biden said. "'We hold these truths to be self evident.' We've never lived up to it, but we've never walked away from it before. And I just think we have to be more honest. Let our kids know, as we raise them, what actually did happen. Acknowledge our mistakes so we don't repeat them."
That's a very true statement, we haven't lived up to the idea of America yet, but like Joe said, "we've never walked away" from working to make a "more perfect union" as our founders intended. We still have a long way to go as is evidenced by all the scum in our streets like the white supremacist's, wannabe confederates, wannabe Nazi's marching with their tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us!" or the other white nationalist militia's trying to protect the diseased and decayed corpse of what was once the white Christian patriarchy. Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans know the truth about American history and the treasonous confederate pieces of filth that continue to this day to try and hold us back and divide us. The majority know that we still have a long history of systemic racism to weed out of society before we can truly consider ourselves moving towards that goal of a more perfect union.
Biden is right, and the many right wing extremists, white supremacists and those defending them or silently supporting them prove we have a long way to go.
Will all those who believe equality has been finally achieved and there are not problems still today please compare the White House interns under Obama and under Trump. America has gone backwards!
Can't you see the difference? And, if not, then why?
I just noticed this "fact" that is wrong.
The real history is that the Democratic Party tried to destroy the country by fighting a Civil War.
There was no Democratic Party till after the Civil War. If you can't get that right, you shouldn't be discussing this.
Umm
What party do you believe President Buchanan was a member of?
Sean,
The "Party" went through many phases since the actual start of the nation, each bearing no resemblance to the previous stage. It goes back to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the modern day version goes back to Andrew Jackson. If you can't get that fact straight, then anything that follows is flawed.
Just admit you are wrong.
The idea that the democratic party didn't exist until 1865 is embarrassing.
The Democrats in 1850 were Democrats in 1866.
This is too pointless to discuss.
The Democratic Party was founded in 1828...
Goppers often claim to have no memories regarding race politics past 1964. They do not remember the Dixiecrats of 1964 or George Wallace in 1968 or Richard Nixon in 1972. In '72 Dick Nixon famously welcomed all of the disaffected partyless racists into the gop's "Big Tent" where they abide to this very day. "We" should know our history...
What are you talking about? The Democrats advocate for racial discrimination by the government, the GOP opposes. IT's not the GOP who tries to hide it's support for ongoing race discrimination by the government.
That is unadulterated bovine manure...
Read about Nixon's Southern Strategy here.
I am tired of explaining it all over and over...
'Just as I said, its not the GOP who tries to hide it's support for ongoing race discrimination by the government.
Why don't you stop deflecting and address the Democrat's ongoing racial discrimination by the government?
"The Democratic Party was founded in 1828...
Goppers often claim to have no memories regarding race politics past 1964. They do not remember the Dixiecrats of 1964 or George Wallace in 1968 or Richard Nixon in 1972. In '72 Dick Nixon famously welcomed all of the disaffected partyless racists into the gop's "Big Tent" where they abide to this very day. "We" should know our history..."
They have selective memory, or would that be deflective memory, or projective memory . . .
Since you know better because it has all been explained to you before I cannot help but find something actually sinister in the willfulness with which you use and desciminate rank disinformation.
Our history for good or for bad is our history. I can acknowledge the Democrats were on the wrong side of history prior to the Civil Rights Movement and the Act of 1964.
That you cannot or will not acknowledge the damn gop's true history regarding race these last fifty years is upon you.
Oh brother. Why don't somebody give up on this fatal attempt at telling minorities they are the real racists who need to leave their accumulated power base and run over to join the republican party of Trump. Not interested. Trump will have to get minorities to join the "Trump-party" just like the democratic party did—earn it the hard way!
Don't just talk about it: be about it.
And:
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength
When we see that sort of thing in print we can be pretty sure we are dealing with a bad faith argument. There were a lot of powerful southern Democrats up through WW2 that were racist. As was a lot of the rest of the country, but southern politicians were the worst. The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in both the House and the Senate is very instructive. Virtually all of the Democrats that voted against the act were from the south. Since that point the party has changed dramatically.
Todays political right tries to keep living in the past, and when they bring in the Civil War, it is for political purposes the ancient past.
Why?
What you say is true only if actual facts matter to those involved in the discussion!
And on most social media sites, oftimes many people are not interested in the facts-- rather, standard practice seems to be to revert to crude appeals to base emotions.
I had to go back and read the Declaration of Indepence and the Preamble to the Constitution. It is hard to find instances of where any of the ideas lived up to the expectations, let alone all at once. So it is safe to say we are a work in progress.
Clearly the framers did not foresee the development of the internet.
You might be right.
However I often wonder if they forsaw the advent of the likes of Donald trump-- and those of his ilk!
Considering they were described as the well fed, well bred, well read and well wed... I would suggest there were a few in that category. Is it possible their history has been revised to appear more saintly? It is not a stretch to think it, as we all dainty up our past, which sometimes requires adjusting our opponents stances.