I listened to it a couple of times and I don't see the outrage. I took it he made the comment in jest. Getting tired of those manufactured outrages as well.
I'm refraining from doing any sort of whitesplaining to actual-factual black folks how they should or should not feel about it and how this should affect their plans in November. I will only say that it is something that he would've been better off not saying as a candidate for President of the United States in the year 2020.
I don't think you are wrong that it is a manufactured outrage, but having an old white guy explain what defines another ethnicity/gender is an issue with the woke community that Biden is already having issues with.
If the wokes can't laugh at what Biden said, and can't be bothered to motivate themselves to get rid of Trump regardless of whether the Democratic candidate leaves crumbs in the bed, they can ******** themselves. Wokely, of course. But I don't think they will be that foolish.
I see your point. Personally, I felt it was in jest. AA's have shown their support and affection for Biden and he said it with that in mind. Perhaps he could have spared himself this comment. Having said that, it annoys the heck out of me to hear a few AA's spouting this nonsense about "my vote has to be earned" or similar crap. It is all ridiculous posturing. If some need to be convinced to vote for a democrat, Biden for that matter, against Trump, they need to get their head tested. The funny part, i can bet with you that the next poll, Biden will still be in the high 80's if not the 90's with AAs. This is mostly Twitter noise.
Well, maybe I was a little harsh. But the young left sometimes has trouble with perspective. I remember in 2016, the Gotcha! question from the young left to Dem candidates (in all races) was "Do Black Lives matter?" The correct answer was an unambiguous yes. The wrong answer was that all lives matter, although black lives are in particular danger because of social/policing issues ... at which point the speaker got crushed by diseent. Meanwhile, Trump was asked about Black Lives Matter. Yeah, he was. His answer, to roaring applause, "That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard." When you're spending more time taking down people with the right intentions from your own party who don't give the answer in the form that you want, but who are trying to engage with you and have a discussion, than you are taking down somebody who dismisses with contempt your very premise .... man.
I don't know how to address this, but I will try my best. Sometimes things like this happen when a person feels they have a certain pull in the community of another … and so it looks bad. For example, when I was growing up in NY in the 80s, there would be (usually) Latin American guys who were cool with us straight up Black dudes. And they adopted much of Black American culture. So between us, as friends, they would say some things and use some words (ahem) … that's lets just say would have had someone OUTSIDE that "circle of trust" running for their lives. The problem was that those friends of ours would know that they couldn't go outside of that circle to Black guys they did NOT know and say the same things. It's no different than regular friends, who can crack on each other's mamas, and laugh, but if some stranger in school did it to you, it was time for some furniture moving. That's the problem here. Joe got comfortable. But in an election in which you are speaking to such a wide swath of the electorate, not everyone is going to accept that comfort … they simply don't believe you know them like that. So he needs to be very careful because of those optics.
I agree, but it's not new thing on the left. Orwell wrote about this in Homage to Catalonia, and it no doubt predated the Spanish Civil War.
We know it goes back as far as the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. So that's at least 2000 years.
Here's a music video targeting the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirming Kavanaugh. It ends by thanking Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford, although most senators whose names were given weren't senators when Clarence Thomas was confirmed. AJ, the younger of the singing sisters, was a baby when Thomas was confirmed. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Richard Shelby (R-AL) are the only remaining senators from when they confirmed Thomas. Leahy was among the 48 votes against. The three Republicans were among the 52 votes for, albeit Shelby was elected as a Democrat and became a Republican after the Republicans' success in 1994. Leahy and Grassley are on the Judiciary Committee now. I was unable to find a list of the Judiciary Committee when Thomas was confirmed.
Your googlefu must be off. It's not even 530 on a Saturday morning for me. https://www.businessinsider.com/sen...a-hill-christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-2018-9
LOL, yeah. But actually gotcha questions truly are 2000 years old, as recoded in the book of Matthew:
That is pretty big news! NEW: Federal judge decisively rules Florida ex-felons can’t be denied the right to vote https://t.co/VdUqtYcPF5— Miami Herald (@MiamiHerald) May 24, 2020
Pretty much this. Biden on his worst day is better than what we have They’re talking on @MSNBC right now about how Joe Biden has to earn the black vote. He doesn’t have to earn shit for me. I’m voting for him. He doesn’t have to earn a goddamn thing from me. I know who the devil is. He’s in the White House.— Jason Overstreet (@JasonOverstreet) May 24, 2020 And then there’s this 1264352591934377989 is not a valid tweet id Nobody cares about Biden’s interview except those that have delusions of Sanders somehow replacing him....oh and Trumpanzees
I share both sentiments. The idea that Biden needs to “earn my vote” when he is running against a racist, facist sociopath is frankly stupid.
Well you're just being selfish. Why can't you have any concern for the people who have to fill the 24 hour news cycle? Can't you worry about them? They needed this.
Or, the double standard that people have is amazing. Yes, what Biden said was a pretty stupid thing to say, but it was one thing. Compare that to what Trump says every single day.. seeiously, the same day Biden made that comment, Trump was at a Ford plant complimenting the bloodlines that Ford came from. That’s easily more offensive than what Biden said and the news hasn’t said crap about that. Not only that, but we got Trump retweeting conspiracy theories about an intern that died in Scarborough’s office and wondering if it was murder, retweeting someone that is making fun of Abrams’s weight (which is hilarious given Trump’s weight), accusing Pelosi of being an alcoholic, etc, etc. If they are going to attack Biden to the extent they are, why aren’t they doing the same with Trump. Yes, that crap is stuff that Trump says all the time, but just because he is a racist, sexist f**k doesn’t mean he should get a pass for saying racist and sexist s**t.
Let me do a bit of whitespanin' on this with an anecdote. In general, I see that there are 5 different groups of voters in this election, relative to the Black population: 1 - The Black vote 2 - Those aligned with the Black vote 3 - Those allied with the Black vote 4 - Those concerned about the Black vote 5 - Those who won't vote Biden. This conversation is not about groups 1 or 2. This is about groups 3 and 4. And group 4 is the group which could break Biden. Now, listening to what was said, I completely understood where Biden's head was and why he said what he said. It reminded me of a moment in my classroom a few years back. I had been in a conversation with Black educators and we were talking about how Black history was only taught in February, and even then, it was the White perspective of Black history. It happened that I had a African-American History text book in my class, so I decided to do an experiment and created an abridged US History - The Black People's Version. It was really interesting to me, and some of the students seem to be interested in it, as well. Now, I should say that by this point, I had earned my "Black Card" from the students, so I would be considered part of Group 2 in the list above. So, as I was teaching this section, I really got into it. Not just in the "this is cool," but really tried to immerse myself in the Black perspective. I did this so much that when I started talking about the former slaves after the Civil War, I almost said "we." I caught myself in the middle of my sentence, but to me, I was in an environment where questions could be asked and answered from a Black perspective (as much as I could) in a way that was not necessarily academic. So when I heard the question being asked of Biden, with the language and accent and tone, I could understood how Biden would have been able to say what he said. But most people are not in that space. Most people are in groups 3 and 4, and don't understand the connotation and context of what he said. Most people cannot see how Biden was really talking about Ben Carson or Clarence Thomas or Diamond and Silk. But most people don't get that. And the reporters covering this story are mostly White, or their editors are White, and they are concerned with the blow back from groups 3 and 4 regarding race, so it gets covered from the White perspective. Because that is how we cover politics. And when we look at the history of elections, we look at it from a White perspective. Now, this is not to say that his comment was okay. It was not. And just as I stopped myself back a few years, Biden should have stopped himself. But the issue is not about the Black vote. It is about the White vote. I think TheRoot as a pretty good take on this: https://www.theroot.com/joe-biden-just-proved-why-he-must-have-a-black-woman-as-1843614180