[–] schwanstucker 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
I was fascinated by this article, not so much for its critique of Ms. Clinton, but for its blatant racism. Here's a black writer (I assume), telling us white folks that voting for Hillary won't advance the black agenda (my words, not his). If we reverse those terms, and say, "voting for (__________) won't advance our white agenda, and guarantee that we will receive government benefits, looser qualifications for jobs, college, the military, what would we have said. I know that black folk merely "want to erase the injustice," but...Bullshit. What they want is a superior opportunity, based on nothing more than race. If that's not racism, what is? I have no argument with a helping hand, but when the helping hand for one group becomes a crushing hand for the other, what's it really saying about our society? Am I racist? I suppose so, if by racist you mean that I want a truly color and race-blind society, one that recognizes ability and achievement apart from color or some other identifying feature (Mexican, Asian, White, or upper or lower-class). That society is obviously not what the writer wants.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] schwanstucker 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I know. That's my point. It's in the mainstream. Imagine a white supremacist blog that was read by the same percentage of white folks as this one is read by black folk. Now imagine the societal outcry.
[–] FreeSpeachRocks 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
The amazing thing is the Clinton Team doesn't realize how this type of 'occurrence' feeds the growing distrust of Hillary.
[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I'm sure they do. They're not stupid. The reaction thus far seems to have been to crank up the pandering.