Meet the New Freshmen in Congress: More Democrats, Diversity and Women

[iluvatar5150]

Then Martin didn't follow Zimmerman back to his truck, then knock him to the ground and start pounding Zimmerman's head against the pavement?

I have no idea how the altercation unfolded, just like you have no idea how the altercation unfolded.

Or could it be just an assumption that Zimmerman did anything at all such as calling the police just because Martin was black?

I've already acknowledged that the assessment of Zimmerman's racialized motives is at least partly based on assumptions. What I haven't seen yet is you to acknowledge that your assessment of how the altercation went down is also based on a bunch assumptions.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult.

 

[SummerMadness]

How did a thread about Congress become about the murderer George Zimmerman?

Is it somehow related to pointing to the historic event increased diversity in Congress is considered racism? Let me guess, someone said, "Why is it when we salute and cheer on the accomplishments of white males, it's called racism?" Maybe because that is not an accomplishment, maybe because there is nothing historically holding them back. Why would you need to point out the presence of white males? Is the argument that you should be able to simply swap terms and it means the same thing? Well, it is not the same thing because that ignores history.

An all-white country club isn't pointing to anything new by highlighting a new white member; however, they are by integrating and admitting a new black member. This is important historically, and also because it's just a fact, since these institutions were all white and male due to de jure and de facto discrimination. It is historic when people that were previously discriminated against can now be part of something they were excluded from, you know, like women and people of color. Women only got the right to vote less than 100 years ago and African Americans did not functionally have the right to vote until the late 1960s (1870 doesn't matter when you're murdered for casting a ballot). The fact that these groups that were discriminated against are now leaders Congress is important to highlight. That someone wants to complain because white males are not being highlighted is laughable because please tell me where in history white males have not had the right to vote or run for office due to their skin color?

Swapping terms isn't equal because the history isn't equal.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How did a thread about Congress become about the murderer George Zimmerman?

Is it somehow related to pointing to the historic event increased diversity in Congress is considered racism? Let me guess, someone said, "Why is it when we salute and cheer on the accomplishments of white males, it's called racism?" Maybe because that is not an accomplishment, maybe because there is nothing historically holding them back. Why would you need to point out the presence of white males? Is the argument that you should be able to simply swap terms and it means the same thing? Well, it is not the same thing because that ignores history.

An all-white country club isn't pointing to anything new by highlighting a new white member; however, they are by integrating and admitting a new black member. This is important historically, and also because it's just a fact, since these institutions were all white and male due to de jure and de facto discrimination. It is historic when people that were previously discriminated against can now be part of something they were excluded from, you know, like women and people of color. Women only got the right to vote less than 100 years ago and African Americans did not functionally have the right to vote until the late 1960s (1870 doesn't matter when you're murdered for casting a ballot). The fact that these groups that were discriminated against are now leaders Congress is important to highlight. That someone wants to complain because white males are not being highlighted is laughable because please tell me where in history white males have not had the right to vote or run for office due to their skin color?

Swapping terms isn't equal because the history isn't equal.

This is how it started:

The same was said about every president being a white man. So they elected Obama and got him for 2 terms. Did that satisfy those he was supposedly going to represent? Those who think electing people to the House based on the same type of identity politics are going to be just as disappointed.

From where I sit, it looked like it started to help - especially as compared to the current administration. Obama's DOJ, for example, was pretty active in applying oversight to local police departments, something which Jeff Sessions was pretty strongly against.

Since then, we got racist groups like BLM and similar ones springing up. Because of Obama and his divisive rhetoric against white people, divisions became more "acceptable", as did the resulting violence. IOW, he did not bring people together.

and then after several pages, it became apparent that this "divisive rhetoric" was really just mild language that could have only been interpreted as divisive by people inclined to align all of their assumptions in a way that painted a black person in a negative light and a white person as innocent and put upon.

 

[DaisyDay]

Time will tell if that happens. I find it a little surprising that such ignorance didn't stop her from being elected. The fact that she could be elected while displaying such ignorance of the things she's suppose to be standing up for and representing underscores the idea that she was elected based on identity politics rather than real knowledge of the issues.

Um, yeah, a Donald-voter can't understand voting for someone who displays total ignorance of government......okay...glasshouses, stones.

 

[USincognito]

How did a thread about Congress become about the murderer George Zimmerman?

Is it somehow related to pointing to the historic event increased diversity in Congress is considered racism? Let me guess, someone said, "Why is it when we salute and cheer on the accomplishments of white males, it's called racism?" Maybe because that is not an accomplishment, maybe because there is nothing historically holding them back. Why would you need to point out the presence of white males? Is the argument that you should be able to simply swap terms and it means the same thing? Well, it is not the same thing because that ignores history.

An all-white country club isn't pointing to anything new by highlighting a new white member; however, they are by integrating and admitting a new black member. This is important historically, and also because it's just a fact, since these institutions were all white and male due to de jure and de facto discrimination. It is historic when people that were previously discriminated against can now be part of something they were excluded from, you know, like women and people of color. Women only got the right to vote less than 100 years ago and African Americans did not functionally have the right to vote until the late 1960s (1870 doesn't matter when you're murdered for casting a ballot). The fact that these groups that were discriminated against are now leaders Congress is important to highlight. That someone wants to complain because white males are not being highlighted is laughable because please tell me where in history white males have not had the right to vote or run for office due to their skin color?

Swapping terms isn't equal because the history isn't equal.

Because... teh blax.