Trump claims he understands and will be a boon to working class Americans....Baloney!

[Oldstyle]

No other former President has come close to making the kind of money that Bill Clinton has gotten paid by people seeking influence.

??? Are you keen to share trivia that has no relevance to much of anything? I suppose it's useful if you appear on Jeopardy and they have that as a category....

Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women

Read the article you cited and think about what it says! Bill Clinton received 17.3 million dollars in speaking fees in 2012...while his wife was the Secretary of State! That's a staggeringly large number. So why do you think a former President was pulling down that kind of money from the people who paid him to speak?

• Because he is a former President, and one who left office after having had eight years of decreasing budget deficits and four years of budget surpluses and fantastic economic growth, something no other modern President managed to do.
  
  
  
  
• Because his connections, having been President, and association with other "movers, shakers and 'rainmkers' " (both in and outside of government) and their visions of what should be done, what is happening, what's good/bad about it, etc. was and remains unparalleled at the moment
  • Bilderberg Group
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • Trilateral Commission
  • Others...
• Because he has a demonstrated level of intellectual acuity that rare among people in general, but is equally rare among former politicians and world leaders
• Because he's a celebrity
• Because the people paying had the money to spend
• Because he's a good negotiator of the sum he can charge for what he has to sell
• Because he doesn't talk down to his audience when he addresses them; he speaks to them as though he presumes they are as sophisticated, as well informed and as bright as he is. That's called being a respectful speaker, and in every arena, except USMB, in which I've found myself listening to speakers and/or sharing my ideas, people appreciate that. (For some strange reason, many folks here see thorough and nuanced thinking/communication as some sort of attempt to bamboozle the audience or as an effort of self aggrandizement....Go figure...Why the hell anyone in their right mind would come here to do either of those things -- to do that amid an audience of complete strangers, as we are here, who as such can do one no good whatsoever -- is beyond me...)
• Because in addition to those things, he's actually a very good orator -- Regardless of what one thinks of the ideas he shares, is really quite compelling to listen to; attend an event at which he is the keynote speaker (or hire him for your own) and you'll find that out for yourself if you bother to listen to him.

Then kindly explain why he wasn't making even CLOSE to that amount in speaking fees before Hillary became Secretary of State? Was his "intellectual acuity" less then...than it was a few years later?

I don't have any evidence that he earned materially more per speech before or after Mrs. Clinton's appointment to State. Do you?

Also, has it occurred to you that:

• As a paid speaker he can choose to speak more or less often in any given year? His decisions in that regard will have a material effect on how much he earns in any given year.
• He may demand varying fees for each speaking appearance. I don't know if he does or doesn't because I haven't attempted to engage him to speak and the one time I heard him speak, I wasn't involved in the negotiations. If he charges more to some sponsors and less to others, that too would affect the sum he earns in any given year or month even.

The following is a Politifact examination of what Clinton got paid for his average speaking fees before and during Hillary's stint at the State Department.
None

 

[320 Years of History]

So you only want to discuss how "bad" Donald Trump is...but refuse to discuss how corrupt Hillary Clinton is?

I can discuss that too, but in a thread purposed on discussing that.

 

[320 Years of History]

And your "topic" is that Trump won't be good for the poor. My point is that your progressive policies have done more to harm the poor of America than anything Donald Trump has EVER done!

Regardless of whether that is so, even knowing it to be so, it doesn't do a damn thing to bolster the credibility of Trump's claims about himself and his merits as goes his being "great" for the middle, lower or working classes, to say nothing of for the minority individuals in those classes.

Permítanme explicar...Así es como funciona debatir....Let me 'splain, Lucy....

When someone presents in a debating venue an assertion and case that "such and such" is so/is not so, credible/not credible, etc., it inherently and specifically entreates those who care to participate in the debate/discussion to do one of two things:

• Agree with the assertion and conclusion(s) and amplify upon it/them. This will lead to a discussion that drills down on the nuances of similarity and difference between the rhetors thoughts.
• Disagree with the assertion and present a strong case that refutes it. This will lead to a debate.

Now you'll notice that talking about something else isn't among those two things. Accordingly, I'm indifferent on which of the two positions one takes. I'm willing and able to discuss or debate a position I introduce. I care that one merely directly address the topic cogently, coherently and with rigor. After having done one of those two things, one can then introduce countervailing and tangential factors and arguments, but one only gets to do that after having first directly addressed the topic. So far, all I've seen from you is countervailing and tangential remarks.

It's worth noting that for any legitimate discussion or debate to occur, the opening assertion must be made in neutral terms.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "topic" is that Trump won't be good for the poor. My point is that your progressive policies have done more to harm the poor of America than anything Donald Trump has EVER done!

Regardless of whether that is so, even knowing it to be so, it doesn't do a damn thing to bolster the credibility of Trump's claims about himself and his merits as goes his being "great" for the middle, lower or working classes, to say nothing of for the minority individuals in those classes.

Permítanme explicar...Así es como funciona debatir....Let me 'splain, Lucy....

When someone presents in a debating venue an assertion and case that "such and such" is so/is not so, credible/not credible, etc., it inherently and specifically entreates those who care to participate in the debate/discussion to do one of two things:

• Agree with the assertion and conclusion(s) and amplify upon it/them. This will lead to a discussion that drills down on the nuances of similarity and difference between the rhetors thoughts.
• Disagree with the assertion and present a strong case that refutes it. This will lead to a debate.

Now you'll notice that talking about something else isn't among those two things. Accordingly, I'm indifferent on which of the two positions one takes. I'm willing and able to discuss or debate a position I introduce. I care that one merely directly address the topic cogently, coherently and with rigor. After having done one of those two things, one can then introduce countervailing and tangential factors and arguments, but one only gets to do that after having first directly addressed the topic. So far, all I've seen from you is countervailing and tangential remarks.

It's worth noting that for any legitimate discussion or debate to occur, the opening assertion must be made in neutral terms.

Your "opening assertion" is that Trump will be bad for working class Americans and is hardly "neutral"! How would he be bad for working Americans? By giving them a tax cut and letting them keep more of the money they earn? By getting rid of burdensome regulations that prevent job creation? By bringing back over two trillion dollars in profits American corporations made overseas? By demanding the Federal Government function in a rational manner, cutting waste and fraud like companies are forced to do in the Private Sector? By limiting illegal immigration that undercuts the wages that American workers might get? By forcing our NATO partners to pay their fair share?

What is "bad" for American workers in ANY of that?

 

[Oldstyle]

In contrast...you have the progressive policies that Hillary Clinton espouses that over the past forty years have led to a sustained decrease in the living standards of Middle Class Americans for the first time in our history. Hillary says that the American dream is giving your children better than you had yourself. So if that's the case why are Middle Class Americans convinced that their children will not have it better than they did?

 

[320 Years of History]

And your "topic" is that Trump won't be good for the poor. My point is that your progressive policies have done more to harm the poor of America than anything Donald Trump has EVER done!

Regardless of whether that is so, even knowing it to be so, it doesn't do a damn thing to bolster the credibility of Trump's claims about himself and his merits as goes his being "great" for the middle, lower or working classes, to say nothing of for the minority individuals in those classes.

Permítanme explicar...Así es como funciona debatir....Let me 'splain, Lucy....

When someone presents in a debating venue an assertion and case that "such and such" is so/is not so, credible/not credible, etc., it inherently and specifically entreates those who care to participate in the debate/discussion to do one of two things:

• Agree with the assertion and conclusion(s) and amplify upon it/them. This will lead to a discussion that drills down on the nuances of similarity and difference between the rhetors thoughts.
• Disagree with the assertion and present a strong case that refutes it. This will lead to a debate.

Now you'll notice that talking about something else isn't among those two things. Accordingly, I'm indifferent on which of the two positions one takes. I'm willing and able to discuss or debate a position I introduce. I care that one merely directly address the topic cogently, coherently and with rigor. After having done one of those two things, one can then introduce countervailing and tangential factors and arguments, but one only gets to do that after having first directly addressed the topic. So far, all I've seen from you is countervailing and tangential remarks.

It's worth noting that for any legitimate discussion or debate to occur, the opening assertion must be made in neutral terms.

Your "opening assertion" is that Trump will be bad for working class Americans and is hardly "neutral"! How would he be bad for working Americans? By giving them a tax cut and letting them keep more of the money they earn? By getting rid of burdensome regulations that prevent job creation? By bringing back over two trillion dollars in profits American corporations made overseas? By demanding the Federal Government function in a rational manner, cutting waste and fraud like companies are forced to do in the Private Sector? By limiting illegal immigration that undercuts the wages that American workers might get? By forcing our NATO partners to pay their fair share?

What is "bad" for American workers in ANY of that?

Your "opening assertion" is that Trump will be bad for working class Americans and is hardly "neutral"!

Red:
The assertion is presented in neutral language. Of course the opening assertion isn't neutral in the sense of taking no position. Do you understand the difference between "a neutral position" and "expressing a position in neutral terms?"

Blue:
Go back and look at the OP. You'll find that it's opening assertion and the way you depicted it in the "red" text of your post are not the same and do not have the same meanings. You and anyone else who reads the OP will not that my opening assertion is about the credibility/believability of Trump's claims and that the support for my assertion that his claims are not credible is that his actions do not provide any evidence corroborating his words about him or his policy proposals and other ideas being good for working class folks.

his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.

Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.

I can't spell out any more clearly what the OP is about. I thought surely that nobody would have difficulty comprehending it and responding to it in a responsible and mature way. Clearly I was wrong.

Seeing your ongoing inability to directly respond to to the OP's topic/theme and your inaccurate paraphrasing of the OP's assertion, I even just now pasted the OP in its entirety into a readability tool to gauge whether I wrote it in such a complex way that a typical high school student would have difficulty understanding it. Well, nope, it's not that; the OP is written at ~10th grade reading comprehension level. Accordingly, I've reached the limit of my tolerance for puerility; moreover, I make it a point not to engage minors (I don't know if you are, only that you are an "F &B Manager") and folks who communicate like minors do. Thus I will stop responding to you in this thread no matter what else you have to say on this topic or to me. Goodday.

 

[320 Years of History]

Getting back to one aspect of the OP, the minority aspect of it....CNN tonight on AC360 sponsored a short discussion/debate about why in part Trump carries no credibility with blacks:

• NAACP invited him to address them (at their conference in Ohio that occurred during the same week as the GOP convention). He has not, and has not counter offered with an alternate date, and mind, you, Trump spent most of the GOP convention days in NY, not in Ohio.
• The National Association of Black Journalists invited him to address them. He has not.
• The Urban League invited him to address them. He has not.

As for just how poorly he's polling among blacks, one commentator mentioned that in Highland Park, PA, one poll literally shows him at zero percent, and the poll carries a +/- 3% margin of error. That means that in theory there may be some white folks masquerading as blacks and who also do not favor Trump. LOL LOL

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "topic" is that Trump won't be good for the poor. My point is that your progressive policies have done more to harm the poor of America than anything Donald Trump has EVER done!

Regardless of whether that is so, even knowing it to be so, it doesn't do a damn thing to bolster the credibility of Trump's claims about himself and his merits as goes his being "great" for the middle, lower or working classes, to say nothing of for the minority individuals in those classes.

Permítanme explicar...Así es como funciona debatir....Let me 'splain, Lucy....

When someone presents in a debating venue an assertion and case that "such and such" is so/is not so, credible/not credible, etc., it inherently and specifically entreates those who care to participate in the debate/discussion to do one of two things:

• Agree with the assertion and conclusion(s) and amplify upon it/them. This will lead to a discussion that drills down on the nuances of similarity and difference between the rhetors thoughts.
• Disagree with the assertion and present a strong case that refutes it. This will lead to a debate.

Now you'll notice that talking about something else isn't among those two things. Accordingly, I'm indifferent on which of the two positions one takes. I'm willing and able to discuss or debate a position I introduce. I care that one merely directly address the topic cogently, coherently and with rigor. After having done one of those two things, one can then introduce countervailing and tangential factors and arguments, but one only gets to do that after having first directly addressed the topic. So far, all I've seen from you is countervailing and tangential remarks.

It's worth noting that for any legitimate discussion or debate to occur, the opening assertion must be made in neutral terms.

Your "opening assertion" is that Trump will be bad for working class Americans and is hardly "neutral"! How would he be bad for working Americans? By giving them a tax cut and letting them keep more of the money they earn? By getting rid of burdensome regulations that prevent job creation? By bringing back over two trillion dollars in profits American corporations made overseas? By demanding the Federal Government function in a rational manner, cutting waste and fraud like companies are forced to do in the Private Sector? By limiting illegal immigration that undercuts the wages that American workers might get? By forcing our NATO partners to pay their fair share?

What is "bad" for American workers in ANY of that?

Your "opening assertion" is that Trump will be bad for working class Americans and is hardly "neutral"!

Red:
The assertion is presented in neutral language. Of course the opening assertion isn't neutral in the sense of taking no position. Do you understand the difference between "a neutral position" and "expressing a position in neutral terms?"

Blue:
Go back and look at the OP. You'll find that it's opening assertion and the way you depicted it in the "red" text of your post are not the same and do not have the same meanings. You and anyone else who reads the OP will not that my opening assertion is about the credibility/believability of Trump's claims and that the support for my assertion that his claims are not credible is that his actions do not provide any evidence corroborating his words about him or his policy proposals and other ideas being good for working class folks.

his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.

Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.

I can't spell out any more clearly what the OP is about. I thought surely that nobody would have difficulty comprehending it and responding to it in a responsible and mature way. Clearly I was wrong.

Seeing your ongoing inability to directly respond to to the OP's topic/theme and your inaccurate paraphrasing of the OP's assertion, I even just now pasted the OP in its entirety into a readability tool to gauge whether I wrote it in such a complex way that a typical high school student would have difficulty understanding it. Well, nope, it's not that; the OP is written at ~10th grade reading comprehension level. Accordingly, I've reached the limit of my tolerance for puerility; moreover, I make it a point not to engage minors (I don't know if you are, only that you are an "F &B Manager") and folks who communicate like minors do. Thus I will stop responding to you in this thread no matter what else you have to say on this topic or to me. Goodday.

Look at the title of this string and then tell me that you started with a "neutral" post! You've GOT to be kidding!

I communicate like a minor? Really? Why...because I ask you to explain things that you can't? For your edification, I'm in my 60's now but my reading comprehension is just fine. I was a History major in college before going on to get an MBA. Put the title of your string into your "readability tool" and see if it's not about as non-neutral as they come!

I noted that you had no response to my PolitFact cite that showed Bill Clinton had a huge increase in the amount of money that he was getting paid for speaking engagements once Hillary was named Secretary of State. Funny, you ask for something but when it's provided...you don't have a comment. So are you ceasing to respond to me because your limited tolerance for puerility or because you don't have a credible response to the points I've raised?

Oh, let me guess...you're one of those liberals that doesn't talk to people who don't agree with them? You amuse me...when you come up short in the discussion you're in...your response is to post something that you THINK makes you sound intelligent but really makes you look like someone hiding their ignorance behind flowery language.

 

[320 Years of History]

Listening to Trump's speech in Wisconsin right now. I hear him talking about what's wrong, what's transpired, how he assesses those events and phenomena, what someone else is doing, and so on with regard to black folks. I await so much as the first proposal or assertion about what he will do that is different. His trend is to never identify how he'll achieve any of his stated objectives. I expect that will be what he does again.

• Trump says in this speech which seems targeted at black folks:
  • "I will secure our borders...yatta, yatta, yatta..."
  • I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA, strand up to China, protect every last American job."
  • I'm going to give a massive tax cut to every worker, bring thousands of jobs and make it hard for companies to leave the U.S.

That's all great. How? In implementing policy to achieve those goals, what will change for black folks? That's what I want to know. I think that's what anyone with any sense and who is open to considering whether to vote for Trump over someone else, would want to know.

I'm sick and tired of hearing Trump tell me about what's been and the other folks who are running. Everyone running has the same goals: make everything better than it is now. Those are the same stated goals, one way or another, of every political candidate who's run for anything in the past century. I want to know what he's going to do and how; telling me that would be doing something different from what every other candidate has done.


It's worth noting, BTW, that the speech is heavily targeted to black voters/citizens. One member of the audience in the room listening to the speech, a white woman, remarked how it's strange that Trump chose to deliver his exhortation to black folks in a room comprised of 1% or fewer black people and that Milwaukee would have been a much more logical choice for delivering this speech. Of course, by the same token, it's easy to talk about a community of people when that community of people aren't by and large present to respond in person and real time on national television to one's words.

You know what other places it'd make sense to deliver this speech? Before any of the three organizations that I know of as having invited Trump to address them: NAACP, Urban League, or the NABJ.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary's goal is to get at least four more years of cashing in on her and Billy's little pay for play thing! You think she's planning on "helping" black people? How? By passing a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage that will kill jobs? By letting more illegals enter the country to drive down wages? By banning coal consumption so everyone's electricity bill is higher than it is?

 

[Oldstyle]

All Trump is doing is explaining to minority voters that the liberal "plantation" so many of them now exist on...is not the only choice.

 

[Vigilante]

Becsuse the working class has lost Over $3,000 in salary under the Obumaroid?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, you know, if Trump were to have delivered last night's speech at an inner city location where there are more than 20 black people available to be in the audience, it may have been impactful. Do you know how many people live in West Bend, WI? ~31K. What percentage of them are black people? 1% If Trump wanted to be sure to have a substantial share of black folks in his audience he could have delivered his speech in any number of places:

• Detroit, MI -- Oh, wow...Detroit, now there's an interesting place to deliver a speech that at least a dozen times in about 10 minutes expressly calls out to mentions black voters. It's even in one of the so-called battleground states....
• Miami Gardens, FL -- Oh, boy...lookee there...another large black community in another "battleground" state.
• Flint, MI -- Darn, a third heavily black community in Michigan. Hillary Clinton didn't go to Flint did she? Oh, wait, she went there at the height of their water crisis, but I suppose that didn't do anything to make those folks feel as though she gave a damn about them, even if she had to bring her own water. I'd wager that literally millions of "regular" people donated something to help the people in Flint during the crisis.
  • And as long as we are remembering that Flint residents didn't have potable water, let's not forget thatTrump "makes" Trump Natural Spring Water. Did any of that water get donated to Flint? Hell no! Trump refused to even comment on the crisis.
    
    
    
    
    • Trump Refuses To Comment On Flint Water Crisis
      
    • Why Didn’t Donald Trump Send His Water to Flint?
      
    • Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores has pledged $10 million toward the crisis -- Look at that; someone in the billionaire class had enough sympathy for the people of Flint to donate $10M dollars. What was the last thing Trump spent $10M on? Himself, of course.
      
    • Here’s Who Has Donated the Most Bottled Water to Flint
• Savannah, GA -- Wonder of wonders. There's a meaningfully sized black community there too, and wouldn't you just know that he's struggling in the polls in GA. I guess that makes it yet another lousy place to make an appeal to black voters.
• New Orleans, LA -- How bad a place can New Orleans be for delivering a speech to black folks? The Saints stadium and the Convention center are "a stone's throw" from the 9th Ward. (Hell, forget black folks. What about just regular folks suffering hardship? The folks in Baton Rouge and the surrounding area who are flooded out, for example. Have you heard word one from Trump about them?)
• Harlem, NYC -- For the love of God! The man doesn't even have to go far from his own damn home to reach out to blacks.

Now of course simply making a big speech in a venue that is sure to have a heavily black audience is just a gesture, but at the very least it's start, which, quite frankly, aside from a few empty words and accusations in last night's speech about what someone else has not accomplished instead of remarks about how and what he will accomplish, Trump hasn't even made. And, yes, more than a gesture and a few empty words are going to be necessary, for even though there are some blacks who "buy" Trump's BS and who are willing to overlook his priordeliberate acts of derision toward blacks, the fact remains that most blacks have enough experience with recognizing race-based discrimination and being overlooked, especially by folks from Trump's strata of society. Don't forget, black folks have worked in the homes of folks like Trump and his parents.

If one doesn't think those people hear "stuff" and can tell "what's what" with the folks they work for, and cannot tell when folks are just "smiling in their face," one is insanely naive. I know the majority of black folks can tell a bigot when they interact with or observe one. On more than one occasion when Daddy had company over, the black women who worked in our home would come into the kitchen where I was and start singing "Smiling Faces" right after Daddy had made some sort of complimentary remark, usually about the food and wonderful spread that had been prepared, because they had plenty of times also overheard what he said on other occasions when he had no idea they were within earshot. Yes, outwardly and in terms of pay and so on, Daddy did right by those women, but inside and based on things he said to me about black folks, he thought better of his dogs. He's better than that now, but he's only going to get but so much better....Even so, he knows Trump's "stripes," or at least what they look like, just as do black folks, Latinos, David Duke and others.


And another thing. I know Trumpeteers are quick to try to introduce comparisons with other folks. In this case the comparison will be with Hillary and Bill Clinton. So, in preemptive mode, let me point out some facts that go well beyond mere gesture.

• A Harlem rally served as both reunion and reintroduction for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton has an office in Harlem.
• HIllary Clinton did show up in Flint, MI during the water crisis and her donors contributed half a million dollars to the cause. (also: Beyond the talk, here's what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are doing to actually help Flint)
• Bill Clinton's office was in Harlem.
• The Clintons have lived among and interacted closely with blacks since they were "knee-high to nothing." Some of their good deeds make news, like the millions of black kids helped by the Clinton Foundation, and other bits of it only make their way through the "community grapevine." (Blacks and Latinos know what I'm talking about.)
• Toni Morrison made it very clear for all how Bill Clinton has lived the black experience writing:
  • After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear: “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and—who knows?—maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.”

White folks of many stripes and great in number, even some of us who do a somewhat decent job of it and how are genuine in skirking the legacy into which we were born, being proud of ourselves while we too hold in equal regard our non-white brethren, often enough succumb to viewing race, it's attendant issues and strife, as merely matters of skin color. Make no mistake, it is that, but it's also much, much more than just that. You see, for as much as race has been about melanin, or physical features, the hued and unhidden aspects of it harbor within and issue largely from the need to name, to label someone before doing something to them. Race is not a sober-minded description of peoples. It is casus belli.

Plain and simple race is little but shorthand for the variously overt and covert battle for power: one side trying to get a share of it and the other husbanding it in any way possible for themselves. Clinton isn’t black, in Morrison’s rendition, because he knows every verse of Lift Every Voice and Sing, but because the powers arrayed against him find their most illustrative analogue in white supremacy. “People misunderstood that phrase,” Morrison would later say. “I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp.”

Now, one can make all sorts of arguments over whether the pursuit of Clinton was, in fact, analogous to how black people have been regarded across American history. But Morrison was not giving Clinton an award. She was welcoming him into a club which should not exist.

Most Americans understand race as indelible—as a thing which you really are—and thus Morrison’s point went right over the heads of even relatively educated people. This is convenient. As long as “race” can be considered as who you are, and not what someone else did to you, then Americans can see themselves as heroic do-gooders in struggling against our more ignorant and animalistic impulses.

So when Donald Trump with gall overflowing says that the Clintons, Hillary or Bill, don't care about the circumstances of African Americans...When Trump to just about the whitest audiences he can fine -- be it the folks in West Bend, WI or the folks in the GOP convention with it's 18 black delegates -- utters platitudes of attesting to his desire to help African Americans in one sentence and the very next sentence about restoring law and order tacitly remarking that they are the source of the lawlessness....When Trump has yet to accept an invitation to appear before any major black organization....When Trump does all that, black folks aren't too damned dumb to know what he really means. And while a gesture is nice and it will be welcomed, he's still got a long way to go between now and November....

Trump's been at this campaigning thing for over a year and here, the ides of August 2016, is when he finally decides he should talk about African Americans and all he wants to do for them? Puh-lease! I don't know who I think is the bigger fool. Him for trying to get folks to believe his sh*t or the folks who actually do believe it.

And and he has the nerve to accuse Hillary Clinton and Democrats of caring naught about blacks but for their votes come election season! Even assuming he's right, a proposition having odds comparable to that of the Second Coming being this Friday, but just for grins assuming he is right, can you say "psychological projection?" Yessiree, Bob. Can the pot call the kettle black and think the skillet don't know what's going on? Not today, baby.




"Lots of black folks were born at night, but not nary enough of them were born last night."
-- 320 Years of History, paraphrasing an idiom that's been around "forever"

 

[Oldstyle]

So what's really important to you isn't whether someone's policies have actually helped black people...it's whether they go to black neighborhoods during election years and promise them that THIS TIME their policies will help them? As long as they do that...it's OK that liberal policies have decimated black lives?

At some point black voters in this country are going to have to take a long hard look at the glaring differences in what they've been promised by progressive politicians and what those progressive politicians have delivered on!

 

[Correll]

Earlier today I found myself in a discussion (RL) with several other folks about why Trump (not the GOP) is unpopular as a Presidential candidate among working class minorities yet is extremely popular among working class white folks. It is bizarre to me why one might even wonder when the answer is as plain as the nose on one's face: his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.

To illustrate, consider any number of things:

• The fact that it's hard to find any instances of Trump's having visited working class minority neighborhoods and speaking with, and more importantly listening to, working class minorities.
• The fact that not one of his business ventures has working class people as target customers.
• His behavior at Bronx P.S. 70...especially when considered in contrast with another corporate executive's comportment at the very same school.

Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.

Now do the preceding examples and others that I didn't mention speak to why minorities overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Clinton? Of course not. Does it say anything about whether Mrs. Clinton would be better for working class minorities', or working class people in general's, fortunes? Not at all. To gauge whether the same assertion has anything supporting it, one must consider her actions. The thing is that whereas I can find throughout her long life in public service instances where her remarks suggest something other than a comprehensive understanding of working class minorities' needs, I can't find any instances at all of her acting with deliberacy or insouciance toward them.

Deporting illegals, limiting Third World Immigration, and bringing back manufacturing jobs would obviously benefit Working Class Americans.

That is why Working Class Whites support Trump, overwhelmingly.

 

[Zorro!]

LOL Here we have the Orange Donald getting under 10% of the black vote, less than 20% of the Hispanic vote, and, at the most, 30% of other minority votes.

Add in maybe, if he is lucky, 40% of the womens vote, the largest single voting demographic. Now, seems to me, that you might be working giving some of those voters reason to vote for Trump, rather than trying to state that Hillary is worse. Because there is ample evidence that the minority voters are not buying that.

I don't know, trump did pretty well, and he's going after the minority vote.

HE’S TRYING TO PEEL MINORITY VOTERS AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS: Donald Trump to make ‘school choice’ a major topic at State of the Union address.