The Democrat's War on Whites

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't know why this comes as news to you guys. I don't know about a "war on whites", but the Obama campaign made a strategic decision in the last campaign to essentially ignore appealing to the "white working class".

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ype=blogs&_r=0

The Democrat party has effectively positioned itself as the "party of the aggrieved", and is intent to use the mechanisms of government to bring about whatever social change it sees fit. The constitution is an impediment to this agenda, thus we first get the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid in the Senate, followed by a president with a "pen and a phone" who will do whatever he can to spirit the agenda forward.

Pbbbbbbbbt. I'm working class white and I voted for him twice. Even if I leaned right, the alternatives made it a no brainer. Grumpy McCain and Ditz Palin then Silver Spoon Romney and Lyin' Ryan. Once again with a Bronx cheer for ya Mike-Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Again Obama's fault, somehow Brooks found a way to slip this in his comment.
Surprised that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is not blamed on Obama.

Sure it's blamed on Obama by him showing weakness to the world. All his movements of "Red Lines" is a sign of weakness that has emboldened enemies of democracy.

[Pio1980]

About the 'Pubs war on Obama---?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Sure it's blamed on Obama by him showing weakness to the world. All his movements of "Red Lines" is a sign of weakness that has emboldened enemies of democracy.

He's been a disappointment to me insofar as his poor choices in advisors and other delegated posts. The POTUS' major power is the power to delegate, and squandering that power on loyalists rather than the best experts in their respective fields regardless of affiliations is a sadly common costly mistake, also made by Reagan and Nixon as well.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't know why this comes as news to you guys. I don't know about a "war on whites", but the Obama campaign made a strategic decision in the last campaign to essentially ignore appealing to the "white working class".

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ype=blogs&_r=0

The Democrat party has effectively positioned itself as the "party of the aggrieved", and is intent to use the mechanisms of government to bring about whatever social change it sees fit. The constitution is an impediment to this agenda, thus we first get the "nuclear option" employed by Harry Reid in the Senate, followed by a president with a "pen and a phone" who will do whatever he can to spirit the agenda forward.

Since when are "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists" aggrieved? It seem to me the whole idea of introducing the notion of a "War on Whites" is deliberately designed to aggrieve the white working class in favor of the GOP. Both parties play by the identical rulebook in that they try to inculcate the idea that the other party is out to get them. Hell, the GOP has even tried to sell aggrievement to the mega-rich. Poor dears.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

He's been a disappointment to me insofar as his poor choices in advisors and other delegated posts. The POTUS' major power is the power to delegate and squandering on loyalists is a sadly common costly mistake made by Reagan and Nixon as well.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Hi Steve
After a weak Carter administration Iran sure let the hostages go as soon as Reagan took office.

[Pio1980]

The whole civil rights movement was attacked as a war on white "traditional" values.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Hi Steve
After a weak Carter administration Iran sure let the hostages go as soon as Reagan took office.

And RRs response to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing could be described as a bugout retreat rather than a strategically dictated withdrawal. The hostages deal was a major miscalculated prior agreement made by the Iranians to make a statement at the cost of a better outcome for them. In that respect the irony was ours to enjoy and theirs to regret as they had a much better opportunity for resolution thru Carter.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

Speaking of the War on Whites, this timely Op-Ed piece discusses the legacy of Nixon's Southern Strategy, still alive today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...f8a_story.html

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Since when are "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists" aggrieved? It seem to me the whole idea of introducing the notion of a "War on Whites" is deliberately designed to aggrieve the white working class in favor of the GOP. Both parties play by the identical rulebook in that they try to inculcate the idea that the other party is out to get them. Hell, the GOP has even tried to sell aggrievement to the mega-rich. Poor dears.

Read that as the Democrats want to raise their taxes a bit. Look at the biting, screaming, and kicking that went on just when their tax rates went back to 39%. Hell, prior to the Bush tax cuts, 39% was the lowest they had ever paid in history. Far too low still in my book.