Democrat's Continued Assault On Whites

"Democrats are poised to strip Iowa of its traditional lead-off spot in the presidential nominating calendar in 2024, part of a broader effort to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate by allowing less overwhelmingly white states to vote first."

 

i know what the article said, however, you really need to look at what Iowa is and is not without looking at race. Being first in a presidential election usually does not bode well for any candidate, like Kamela Harris or Bernie Sanders in 2020, for instance.

 

But democrats specifically said they were looking at it due to race.

 

I think the base motive behind such things really has little to do with white privilege; everything to do with destroying spirit, pride and dividing people so they may be easily manipulated.
If you think that is a strategy that only the most despicable of men would follow, you would be right.

Regardless of what we say or claim, what we do defines who we are. Pay attention the actions and the results of those actions, and you can understand how they think. It will be hard for an honorable man to accept that any human being could in some cases, nonetheless, that reveals the truth.

 

You don't have to be a citizen to be in our armed forces.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/immigrants-in-the-us-armed-forces

 

“But many rules committee members privately said that the party is leaning toward either New Hampshire or Nevada going first, or perhaps on the same day.”

 

Bull.

It's not at all about "white states".

There is significant diversity of views within the Democratic party, and the lead-off primary has inordinate influence.

The idea that one state should hold that position in perpetuity is ridiculous.

 

The problem with multistate primaries is that in emphasizes the financial backing factor.

Surely multistate primaries would give more control to party central, which already has a significant role in funding.

This is already a factor in later primaries held on the same date. But, at least less well funded candidates have a chance to make a showing in earlier primaries before such huge tests of fundraising.

 

The point of the quote, pulled from the article in the OP, was to point out it isn’t a “white” issue as the OP claims since NH has an even higher white population than Iowa.

 

In what way are spirits of white folks being destroyed?

 

I didn't make it up. That's what was said in black and white.

 

How are white people portrayed as a group in the public sphere?

 

But, it's pretty clear you took the quote out of context to match your agenda.

What the objectives were by candidates in one primary is not a measure of whether Iowa should be the perpetual lead-off state, not is it a measure of what the issues for picking such a state might be.

Beyond that, Iowa does not have the racial demographics of the US as a whole - by a long shot.

I would suggest that is an important issue if the US is interested in equality of opportunity, our constitution, etc.

 

What the heck does THAT mean?

Today, there is NO QUESTION that whites are advantaged. There is no measurement ever made that has determined that dark skin color is an advantage.

 

I didn't say you made it up.

I said you took the quotes out of context.

 

LOL. The quote was the quote.

 

And, you twisted it to support your ridiculous claim.

 

I didn't twist anything. They said it in their very first paragraph. But, it's not really anything new. Democrats have been standing up for everything and everyone but white people over the last several years.

 

Who was quoted?

 

Unless you’re interviewing with a dark skinned manager. Then your likelihood of getting hired gets exponentially higher.

 

You took it entirely out of context. Then, you think THAT is an argument for your butt hurt.

Sad.

 

Try finding stats to back your butt hurt.

 

There was no context. It said what it said. In fact, YOU are the one who is twisting it and taking it out of context.

 

Oh, please.

Comments do NOT get made without context. That's not something that can happen.

The people you claim to quote (with NO cite!!) were undoubtedly discussing their campaign objectives.

Campaign objectives are clearly specific to the situation in a specific campaign.

 

Who said it?