Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[JonNC]

JonNC:

If there is proof, I will join in the condemnation

Short of a sworn, witnessed and notarized statement in writing from, say, the chancellor of the city school system declaring his or her belief that non-white children aren’t worth educating, I don’t think there’s any proof that you’d accept.

So, you know me personally that well.
The fact is you don’t know that, but when you charge institutional racism, yes, I expect something more than it feels that way. If it’s institutional, there will be evidence.

 

[abucs]

If there is proof, I will join in the condemnation.

Exactly. Republican history has a proud record of doing this and actually much more than just condemnation.

What it does not get on board with is a Left wing attempts at identity politics jumping at every half chance to justify a world view based on oppression Olympics.

Good on them for standing their ground to such dangerous insanity.

 

[Hereiam]

Which Gospel? The Gospel According to Hereiam?

LOL…well certainly not the Gospel According to Harry!

 

[MonteRCMS]

Interesting chart:

https://certificationmap.com/the-education-olympics-infographic/

Loading…

www.pbs.org

The problem is the inequality within the school system, which Watkins calls “shocking.”

“In the American education system, the fact that the best 10 percent outperform Singapore and the worst 10 percent of schools with high concentrations of poverty are down there with countries like the average level for Indonesia,” Watkins said. “That’s an extraordinary spread of inequality in a very rich country.”

In that sense, the U.S. is actually a lot like India, he adds.

“We know from the data in the United States that today’s education inequalities and dropout rates will be tomorrow’s social inequalities,” Watkins said. “That’s true for India; it’s true for the United States; and unless we can close education divisions, the social divisions are automatically going to widen over time.”

This belief in the transformative power of education is widespread in developing countries and is pushing graduation rates “unambiguously upward,” said Kevin Watkins, of the Brookings Institution. He calls it a parent’s “primordial drive” to get their students in school.

“This real conviction that that the way out of poverty for our family is to get our children into and through the system,” Watkins explained.

Even U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan agrees that’s something the U.S. needs to copy.

“I think in other countries, there’s a greater understanding that education is the path to a middle class life,” he said. “And somehow we have to get back that sense of urgency, that commitment that other countries have.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The difference is our society already recognizes that white lives matter.

Then the start of such an organization would not be declared offensive and racist?

Actually, no. Both BLM and WLM could exist and be non-racist, as long as neither one makes the claim that their race matters more. BLM does not make that claim. It does make the claim the white lives already do matter, which is why they take the trouble to say BLM.

But it has a problem with recognizing that black lives matter. So the purpose of BLM is to end up where society does recognize that all lives matter by correcting the lack of recognition specifically in the areas where it is not being recognized.

And if that were the only motive if BLM, to defend blacks whose lives are taken by law enforcement without just cause, I’d stand with them. But that isn’t their only motivation.

Since BLM is not a hierarchical organization, there is no one “motivation.” There are thousands of individual motivations, and some of them are racists, probably. But most of them are not.

It should be sufficient to exhibit a statistical correlation when there are no other variables.

So, the statistical correlation between progressive Democrats in charge of large cities for decades being the places where most police shootings of blacks take place is sufficient to charge those progressives with racist actions.

You will note that I specified “when there are no other variables.” In the case you mentioned, there is another obvious variable. That variable is the population density. That more than anything else influences the incidence of violence. You can speculate that violence has something to do with the policies of the leaders, but the statistics alone do not prove it. But in the statistics I refer to (the higher proportion of unarmed black men being shot by police) where is the “other variable” (besides racism) that can explain the statistic?

 

[exnihilo]

Crime and bad behavior aren’t due to lack of government or money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is not, however, conservatives who keep reminding them. It’s the left which, in its eagerness to paint conservatism as racist, keeps saying racist things.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Victoria33:

I think people know the Democrats were the party of slavery.

And Dredd Scott, and Jim Crow, and the KKK, and interment of Americans of Japanese origin, and the Trail of Tears.

Yes, the Democratic Party used to be the party of conservatives. Slavery was, after all, the tradition. The Democrats were upholding traditional Southern values by fighting for slavery and opposing these new-fangled ideas of giving political and economic power to former slaves. The Republicans have a proud history of progressive ideas like abolition of slavery, and equal rights.

Some time in the early 20th century a realignment began. The realignment culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party had become the party of conservatives and the Democratic Party became the party of liberals. Keep that in mind whenever you refer to history to justify your view of today’s political parties.

 

[dvdjs]

My identification of racism to the Democratic Party reflects historic fact

But in the present day the situation is reversed. And the current voting patterns reflect that present reality.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, but by the time Ronald Reagan was
elected, the Civil War had been fought long ago.

Conservatism and liberalism today is not what it was over 150 years ago.

 

[Inisfallen]

Conservatism and liberalism today is not what it was over 150 years ago

You’re right. Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Probably JFK too.

 

[Inisfallen]

Probably JFK too

Maybe. He wasn’t all that liberal. But Lyndon Johnson is, for sure. And FDR. I don’t think they’d be any happier with today’s liberalism than Barry Goldwater would be with today’s conservatism.

 

[HarryStotle]

JonNC:

My identification of racism to the Democratic Party reflects historic fact

But in the present day the situation is reversed. And the current voting patterns reflect that present reality.

The Democratic Party is and always has been about raw political power and have opportunistically been on the side that could leverage votes (democratically, of course) to keep the party in power. 150 years ago it was whites because they were in the majority.

Today, given the move towards globalism and the realization that whites are a minority in the world, the Democratic Party has been unabashedly mercenary about bringing into their fold minorities of all stripes – Hispanics, African-American, LGBTQ+, Muslims, etc., in short, any identifiable group that can be brought into the coalition of minorities are being pandered to under the rubric of “equal” rights.

It is why the immigration policies have been allowed to go flaccid and the media have been marshaled to point at every perceived inequality and every conceivable area of advantage as having come about as the result of unearned privilege.

In any reasonable age this facade of justice would have been recognized as such and dismissed for what it is: power mongering. After several decades of massaging by the liberal mass media and a broken education system, the Democratic Party has put into place a working subterfuge that masks their real motives and goals behind a facade of social justice.

Just look at the jurisdictions where the Dems have held power for decades – most are disasters especially for the minorities the Dems claim to champion.

 

[HarryStotle]

Some time in the early 20th century a realignment began. The realignment culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party had become the party of conservatives and the Democratic Party became the party of liberals. Keep that in mind whenever you refer to history to justify your view of today’s political parties.

It makes a nice narrative for current Democrats. The problem is that there is virtually zero evidence for it being true.

 

[dvdjs]

The Democratic Party is and always has been about raw political power …

sure

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I think the fact that we can’t utilize a perfectly acceptable word that literally should be taken as a compliment, is horrendous. This was not ignorant or racist, find me a racist act by an individual and I will call it such. The use of a complimentary word, regardless of its history, should be taken as a complimentary word and nothing more. . And frankly this attitude about words is what leads to extreme public censorship and the downfall of free speech.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It refers to the use of words or phrases that may seem innocent to most people but that have a different, more sinister or racist tone with others.

Why are Democrats the only people who can hear them?

 

[stevegravy]

The absurdity is caring what the politically correct think.

Words are words and ideas are ideas and if we can not say or express them then you do not have freedom of speech. Pretty simple really.

 

[Inisfallen]

Words are words and ideas are ideas and if we can not say or express them then you do not have freedom of speech

You can say anything you want.

Disagreement and even disapproval are not the same as censorship.