Donald Trump finally got around to demonizing African Americans. The only surprise is how long he took to get there. Early in the campaign season, he raged about Muslims and demanded they be barred from entering the country. He labeled Mexican immigrants “rapists.” He has insisted that a wall, built by the United States, paid for by Mexico, must rise along the southern border. But he held off on making broad, baseless generalizations about black people.
Just to reiterate: If the D.s cared about winning Bernie would have been their nominee. Since the same oligarchs run each (main) party, and they gave us HRC as one part in this extortionist race, giving Trump a better chance of winning.... do the oligarchs want chaos and violence that follows from a "law & order" president when the opposite is called for (the opposite of militarism is compassion)?
And more than winning their particular office?
If so, qui bono from all the resulting chaos?
The increasing economic inequality the darling of the oligarchs supports will have a disproportionate impact on low income minorities.
She isn't likely to reverse the increasing militarization of the police either.
Trump and Clinton are both bad for minorities.
Vote sane. Vote Green.
His "agenda" is A RECIPE FOR DISASTER here and abroad!
Hillary's program will be no better than Trump's.
I'm not advocating violence, but frankly, considering all the violence & oppression USA dishes out at home & abroad, a little civil unrest might be called for.
With Obama as POTUS and Oprah as First Lady, White Americans could pretend that racism was over, and African-Americans could pretend that racism was finally on wane.
But since all the data shows that African-Americans continued to fall behind during the last 8 years, consumerist figureheads might no longer be sufficient to contain people's disgust at an unjust system.
Donald Trump represents the true ugliness the other politicians try to hide. It would be a sort of poetic justice if he became president, although, scout's honor, I won't vote for him OR Hillary.
It's not a recipe. It is what they want to happen. It becomes more and more obvious every day, with each summary execution performed. White people are so dumb; their people get mowed down every day, too. But, apparently that is okay with them. What a F'd up country.
Nope, not everything is "all about race," believe it or not, nor does everything come down to "especially people of color." The middle class -- regardless of race -- aren't going rise up, risking their jobs, knowing that there's nothing to fall back on. Every worker stands with a line of equally qualified workers behind him, ready to take his place, willing to work for less.
The Clinton administration served the vital role of pitting the masses against each other by class, middle class vs. the poor, and the years of this administration have been focused on pitting the poor against each other by race. Divide, subdivide, conquer.
Which white people, or is this just a routine statement of a bigot? I'm liberal enough to know that all those white people really aren't the same.
Note that decades of research have shown that most voting choices come down to economic issues, not race. (For example, Hispanics who aren't poor overwhelmingly vote Republican.)
Civil unrest for/against what? Or put another way, if we had a revolution, who would fight whom? We're rich vs. middle class vs. poor, further divided by race. Liberals focused on police violence against black men, disregarding the fact that many police are black, and that the same violence has been directed at white victims, especially the homeless.
It is telling that Trump is so readily believed when he declares to his white audiences that poor, non-white areas are worse than they have ever ever ever been. I am white but unlike most of my fellow working class whites, I have worked in one of the better known "ghettos" and things are better, not worse.
Just a couple miles north of Trump Tower is the South Bronx neighborhood known in the 70s and 80s for crime, gangs and arson: Kelly Street, Vyse Avenue, Southern Boulevard were some of the rougher streets some may remember. Years passed and I again worked in the area from 2008-2013 and it was a much much improved, fairly safe working class neighborhood- still almost entirely black and Latino. Solid two and three family houses had replaced burned out and gutted tenements. Claremont Park, once known for dumping bodies, was a pleasant scene of families and teenagers. And the high schools like Morris and Monroe were greatly improved. Sure, there were still deficits but the adolescents I met were courteous and full of realistic plans for future education.
The hopes of young people in recovering neighborhoods like the South Bronx, however, are fragile and will be smashed if Trump sets the agenda for this country. That man he so admires, Giuliani, was and is a vicious racist and people in the South Bronx well remember how he unleashed white cops on minorities. Do the names Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima sound familiar?
(Trump's connection to the Bronx consists of a sweet tax deal he got from his onetime buddy Mike Bloomberg for building a golf course on vacant land - a golf course where you would be lucky to see even a couple non-whites who were not groundskeepers)
Trump drove away most Latinos from the Republican Party.
A lot of them did vote Republican, but were driven away by Trump's POTUS Candidacy, because Trump's so dangerous.
Obama has for 8 years been focused on pitting races against each other? I don't know what your race is, but you're a pretty repellent human being. Sorta like Sean Hannity. No, a lot like Hannity
DHF buys the republican line that Obama promotes racism.
If voting over past several decades had in fact come down to economic issues Republicans would not have dominated. They certainly would not hold power in states like Mississippi and Alabama.
Polls show that Trump is actually doing a little better among Latinos than Romney did. It's just that more Latino's hate Trump than Romney.
It feels to me like there is more civil unrest now than a decade ago. Maybe Obama's Presidency was a recipe for civil unrest.
There's probably no reasonable doubt that Trump's policies may lead to action and possibly violent action on the streets. In fact, if Trump is elected, it is hard to imagine that the violence of relatively poor and poorly armed people would be our biggest concern.
However, singling out Trump for such examination at least seems to suggest that this is somehow less true of Hillary Clinton. I wonder why.
It is not racism per se that provokes violence, but oppression. Racism is oppressive, but mostly misdirects the response to oppression, pitting one half of the poor against the other, with whom they might otherwise find solidarity.
Clinton's oppressive programs may well result in more extensive violence because it is principally Clinton who has taken from the electorate the electoral option that was most recently and most extensively perceived to exist, that of the Democratic Party as an option for leftists, liberals, and progressives.
Bernie Sanders' campaign demonstrated that such people still existed within the Democratic Party. The treachery of Clinton, the DNC, the media spokespuppets like MSNBC and the NYT, and the silent complicity up and down among party officials all demonstrate coldly that no popular response is now allowed to determine anything within the Party, and thus that the party has ceased to function as a least-worst or liberal or progressive option in all or almost all cases at any level.
Sanders' own complicity in backing Clinton, whatever its motive, has broken the movement that in some sense once was his roughly in two, and estranged both halves from each other and from him. Our first best chance would seem to be to push the Green Party into campaign funds and onto ballots, ready for 2018. However, polls at this point do not reflect enough support to accomplish this.
That will almost certainly leave us with absolutely no meaningful electoral recourse in general, nor in almost any individual election. This is very much as has been discussed by Chris Hedges over the past several years in his reflections on what he calls "the death of the liberal class."
I should think it predictable that this should lead to violence, though I also think that a violent insurrection is the one this government is best equipped to defeat.
Part of the difficulty with non-violent action, however, will surely be the new array of usually non-lethal but often invasive and damaging crowd-dispersal weapons that have been tested in recent years. Over the 20th century, the tradition developed that people recognized their solidarity because they met in protest. This allowed them to verify very palpably that they were not alone in their struggles. If crowds are blown apart quickly by mace and pepper spray and water cannons and quick flashes of heat or intense sound, this may become more difficult to accomplish. Mass surveillance and profiling will also enable selective extreme violence against "examples," the kind of thing that we have seen with drone strikes against Moslem clerics and their families and the sort of thing that has happened repeatedly at CIA and CIA-associate hands throughout Latin America for many decades.
Trump is far more dangerous than Hillary Clinton, and would be way, way more likely to get us into more wars, plus Trump gets too unpredictably angry, plus he's too thin-skinned, plus he knows absolutely nothing that a President, or even a presidential candidate has to know. He's also very anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-everything.
OK, now we know Drumpf's agenda. The Queen of Darkness's agenda is WWIII, she will keep poking the Bear, i.e. Putin, until she gets it. Which do you choose; death from an overheated environment and complete disappearance of human habitat or from a nuclear war. The Queen has both sets of cards in her hand. Should we let her decide? My brother refers to Jill Stein's run as a vanity candidacy (sound familiar -Thom Hartmann). Please make an ass of my brother, Send the Greens money. They are not going to get it from Goldman Sucks.