“I kinda hate how Kamala has to now pander to the black male vote”

[Savvir]

Republicans dont explicitly cater to white men.

Yes they do….

Bringing back confederate naming

Columbus Day…

Considering reparations for white boers

Removal of affirmative action and actively fighting against DEI initiatives.

Complaining about declining birth rates

They are explicit as fukk. The c00ns who ignore this are just delusional

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yes they do….

Republicans do not explicitly cater to white men. Thats the entire point of everyone pointing out “What they really mean"

its this desire for democrats to do functionally illegal pandering to identity groups that continues to drag us politically because it creates this never-ending ratchet of demands that can't be satisfied unless you say the magic word instead of ENACTING THE POLICY.

If people had focused on not calling certain policy initiatives “reparations” we’d have gotten like 50-60% of what people were asking for.

Bringing back confederate naming

They’re calling that “reverting back to the original name"

They’re not calling that being pro-confederate

Columbus Day…

…was started to cater to Italians

Considering reparations for white boers

Because South Africa passed a bill that expropriated law from white farmers. You can disagree but the superficial framing doesn’t make this racial, but they’re framing it as “Group 1 is oppressing Group 2”.

Removal of affirmative action and actively fighting against DEI initiatives.

They’re claiming its the return of meritocracy, not “we’re trying to limit programs to help black people

Complaining about declining birth rates

They’re falling globally outside of Africa and South Asia

They are explicit as fukk. The c00ns who ignore this are just delusional

The entire point of Trump denying he knew what Project 2025 was literally example of them being on code.

 

[voltronblack]

Most of the promises she made to Black men were not even exclusive to Black men , and came way too late in her campaign.

She fumbled the win, and should have prioritized them. That's what the Republicans did for white men, but as you can see, Black men are not the priority of the Dems.

 

[Piff Perkins]

Yes they do….

Bringing back confederate naming

Columbus Day…

Considering reparations for white boers

Removal of affirmative action and actively fighting against DEI initiatives.

Complaining about declining birth rates

They are explicit as fukk. The c00ns who ignore this are just delusional

You're arguing with a foreigner who is obsessed with gender identity to the point it (further) broke his brain. Don't expect logic. Of course republicans cater to white men, because they cater to the status quo. There is nothing more status quo than a society dominated by white men, and republicans constantly work to maintain that.

A better argument is that republicans also talk about economic and business interests that men want to talk about, whereas democrats sometimes struggle to talk about those things (and instead focus on niche issues or identity as a means of rallying the base). Ironically when democrats figure that out they win big, hence Bill Clinton and Obama, and 2020 Biden. When they can't discuss it? You get Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala.

Running against tariffs is a historically popular position that ALWAYS wins after Americans see what tariffs cost. Anti-tariff sentiment ushered in FDR and 50+ years of dems controlling congress. There's a clear path here...but it will require talking about economics instead of pandering on identity. And the biggest threat is going to be all the interest groups that will encircle candidates and demand they talk about whatever identity issue they want. Which is why someone who is disciplined like Shapiro or Pritzker (or Walz) could easily roll to victory in a primary while Kamala and others focus on dancing with gay influencers and signing stolen land acknowledgements or "abolish ICE" petitions.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You're arguing with a foreigner who is obsessed with gender identity to the point it (further) broke his brain. Don't expect logic. Of course republicans cater to white men, because they cater to the status quo. There is nothing more status quo than a society dominated by white men, and republicans constantly work to maintain that.

A better argument is that republicans also talk about economic and business interests that men want to talk about, whereas democrats sometimes struggle to talk about those things (and instead focus on niche issues or identity as a means of rallying the base). Ironically when democrats figure that out they win big, hence Bill Clinton and Obama, and 2020 Biden. When they can't discuss it? You get Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala.

Running against tariffs is a historically popular position that ALWAYS wins after Americans see what tariffs cost. Anti-tariff sentiment ushered in FDR and 50+ years of dems controlling congress. There's a clear path here...but it will require talking about economics instead of pandering on identity. And the biggest threat is going to be all the interest groups that will encircle candidates and demand they talk about whatever identity issue they want. Which is why someone who is disciplined like Shapiro or Pritzker (or Walz) could easily roll to victory in a primary while Kamala and others focus on dancing with gay influencers and signing stolen land acknowledgements or "abolish ICE" petitions.

1. I’m black

2. I’ve proven Gender bullshyt cost us the election

3. Republicans dont explicitly pander to white men. They code it. Thats the entire point of how they did it.

They attacked DEI on the basis that it wasn’t open to everyone. They’ve flipped the civil rights architecture on its head by focusing on who wasn’t explicitly mentioned as a protected group.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Democrats: “We will center LGBTQ and indigenous communities and black women as the true powerful people they are! "

Republicans: “We will elevate everyone "



Then you wonder why democrats are losing

 

[Bushmaster69]

Republicans dont explicitly cater to white men. Thats what you don’t get. They code everything and it seems black voters continue to devolve and lose maturity about how political messaging works.

Who says I didn't underatand that? I didn't think I needed to spell everything out. It is obvious that republican policies imply advantages towards white men. That's why they voted for Trump in droves.

Your Liberal hubris is amusing though.

This talking down to black men is exactly why your president is Trump, and more Black men voted for Trump this time around.

 

[Piff Perkins]

1. I’m black

2. I’ve proven Gender bullshyt cost us the election

3. Republicans dont explicitly pander to white men. They code it. Thats the entire point of how they did it.

They attacked DEI on the basis that it wasn’t open to everyone. They’ve flipped the civil rights architecture on its head by focusing on who wasn’t explicitly mentioned as a protected group.

That's been their approach to civil rights since day one. It's been the playbook on affirmative action for decades. It's exactly how they attacked Obama for a decade - not just as president but during the primaries before he won. And it all revolves around defending the status quo and who benefits from it the most. Just take your L and move on, I'm not gonna go a bunch of responses on such a basic fact. They pander to them for the simple fact that their entire political argument boils down to "you aren't doing well because They are taking things that belong to you."

 

[Bushmaster69]

Don't let @☑︎#VoteDemocrat see this.

The hindu will say it's Russian/MAGA propaganda

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That's been their approach to civil rights since day one. It's been the playbook on affirmative action for decades. It's exactly how they attacked Obama for a decade - not just as president but during the primaries before he won. And it all revolves around defending the status quo and who benefits from it the most. Just take your L and move on, I'm not gonna go a bunch of responses on such a basic fact. They pander to them for the simple fact that their entire political argument boils down to "you aren't doing well because They are taking things that belong to you."

You were proven wrong, yet again.

Modern Republicans dont explicitly target messaging to white people. They code it up. If you can’t acknowledge this, then you can’t beat republicans.

Lying about this isn’t making you look better.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Don't let @☑︎#VoteDemocrat see this.

The hindu will say it's Russian/MAGA propaganda

It doesn’t challenge anything I said.

Black issues can’t be explicitly addressed because it’s functionally illegal at this stage AND it costs too much political capital to offend other groups who can get engaged with universal programs with less specific targeting.

We used to understand the wink and nod that took place to advance our issues. Requesting explicit acknowledgment is the path to political failure.

 

[parallax]

Most of the promises she made to Black men were not even exclusive to Black men , and came way too late in her campaign.

She fumbled the win, and should have prioritized them. That's what the Republicans did for white men, but as you can see, Black men are not the priority of the Dems.

when she had crypto up there for black men i knew she was lost.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

when she had crypto up there for black men i knew she was lost.

If Kamala has to say “I will do this specifically for black men” then she loses.

Mind you, republicans dont even do this for WHITE voters.

Yall really are missing the point here.

 

[Bushmaster69]

It doesn’t challenge anything I said.

Black issues can’t be explicitly addressed because it’s functionally illegal at this stage AND it costs too much political capital to offend other groups who can get engaged with universal programs with less specific targeting.

We used to understand the wink and nod that took place to advance our issues. Requesting explicit acknowledgment is the path to political failure.

Wtf are you going on about?

Kamala literally explicitly created a half baked "Agenda for Black Men" well after Black men felt that there was nothing there for them implcitily or explicity in her platform. She came off as fugazy, and majority of those promises were not really for Black men since they applied to almost everyone.

So was that illegal then?

Miss me with your remixed history of things

 

[Piff Perkins]

Black men voted for her, this isn't even a reason she lost. She also did relatively well with white voters overall. The problem was the collapse with Hispanic voters, the decline in the youth vote, and the economy breaking undecided towards Trump. That's all that mattered.

The problem with the comparison is that since black men are NOT the status quo, they want to be spoken to directly like other non-white men demos. But dems have decided to speak to us like children who must either be scolded or tempted with candy. I watched Kamala speak to Hispanic men like adults. I watched her speak to women like adults. And then with us you had some blue haired aide googling "what do black men care about" and deciding oh, lets talk about weed and crypto.


I just ask that dems talk to us like adults. I don't need a "black men plan." I'd rather have a candidate who can go to black men and talk about specific agenda pieces that impact us. I want to hear about small business loans and how to get them to us - which IMO should focus on hiring someone who will rubber stamp approvals for (qualified and semi qualified) black applicants. I want to hear about increasing urban farming by pumping that money into cities. Not just for black men...that would be illegal wink wink. I'm sure white people will get some money too but I wanna hear a dem talk about how it will benefit us. The same way they talk to white farmers in Iowa. I want to hear about free community college. Ending federal weed jail sentences. And yes, ending tariffs so everything you purchase becomes less expensive.

Someone is gonna say "but Kamala said all that." Guess what...she couldn't talk about it because she was a shytty communicator and couldn't handle interviews or combative audiences.