Party realignment talk not going away

[Tuco 5003]

Parties continually evolve, taking on new elements to their coalitions as some either change sides, or become marginalized as their popularity wanes in the general public.  One of the most obvious examples in somewhat recent history revolves around the civil rights movement and the Dixiecrats / Blue Dog Democrats.  Trump's victory is likely a milestone marking another transition in which "working class whites*" have identified more with the Republicans/conservatives. 

I believe that a balance between the parties is the natural state of American politics.  A movement of voters from the D to R will result in certain Rs becoming disillusioned and realigning to the Ds.  That's not saying "everything will just work out on its own," but merely recognizing that the parties adjust to win roughly 50% of the time.  Those adjustments can result in significant damage to our country. 

So, what will happen from here and what do I want to happen? Possibilities:

1. Republicans will draw in "working class whites" from the Dems and, contrary to my beliefs on equalization, current Republicans stay Republicans and the Trumpian Republican Party dominates politics for the forseeable future.   

2. Republicans which hate Trump (and the general Trumpian movement of isolationism, xenophobic, irresponsible fiscal policy) start voting Democrat.  Eventually the Trumpian model is not sustainable for the GOP, it returns to it's old ways, and we are pretty much reset to ~2000 alignment minus the military adventurism and homophobia.  (The number of people holding certain views also change, regardless of who they are aligning with.)  In this possibility, the xenophobia element becomes generally marginalized in the political process, which is a good thing.

3. Non-Trump Rs join the Dem permanently, influence politics such that it is less progressive economically and the Republican Party now fully represents the Trumpian model.  That means TrumpGOP wins 50% of the elections and the some traditional progressive concepts, like a safety net for the poor, are marginalized.

4. Pretty much all the old coalitions are shattered and reform into something completely different. 

Option 1 is horrific to me.  Option 3 is pretty damn bad.  Option 2 is what I am focused on. 

But, admittedly, I am largely ignoring major changes in viewpoints/perceptions.  I certainly hope that something that comes out of this is 1)more people realize there are no easy answers to health care, 2) more people realize there are no easy answers to immigration reform, but respecting human rights is non-negotiable, 3) more people realize that there are no easy answers to the budget, and certainly tax "cuts" don't help, etc... Trump ran on a platform of easy answers which don't actually work.

*"working class whites" - for the purposes of this discussion, I am ignoring the fact that this is a misleading euphemism. 

[Tuco 5003]

Topics that might be part of party realignment:

1. Free College

In my opinion, it's somewhat ridiculous to talk about free college while throughout the country the various states are moving pulling resources from the state colleges.  We are losing a battle for affordable college, but reaching for free college.  What to do at the federal level: use federal grant money, and maybe even guaranteed loans, as the hammer to force states to fund their colleges.  Many of the state colleges are land-grant colleges, originally seeded by the federal government.  Much of their research is driven by federal money.  Obviously, much of the tuition they charged is financed by federal money.  And what is happening to them is unacceptable. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

Every one of those scenarios precludes the Mueller investigation finds nothing and determined there was no conspiracy to subvert the will of the people and the US governmental election process by any American. Its entirely possible that no evidence is able to be found to corroborate that a conspiracy ever occurred. However, based on the actions of the Russians it would be foolhardy to assume they were working alone and leave it at that without allowing the investigators to disclose in due time their findings.

[Tuco 5003]

17 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Every one of those scenarios precludes the Mueller investigation finds nothing and determined there was no conspiracy to subvert the will of the people and the US governmental election process by any American. Its entirely possible that no evidence is able to be found to corroborate that a conspiracy ever occurred. However, based on the actions of the Russians it would be foolhardy to assume they were working alone and leave it at that without allowing the investigators to disclose in due time their findings.

The only way the Mueller investigation is relevant to the discussion is if his findings are so shocking and obvious that Trumpsters become disillusioned and basically marginalize themselves, in which case #2 happens more quickly. 

If Mueller finds nothing, Trump is still an abhorrent piece of shit in the view of many Republicans.

[lemonlime 5482]

Right now there is essentially one American political party.  The other party has ceded any loyalty to America and actual governing.  The important thing is voting dems who are competent in this year.  First, in Congress. While they can't impeach trump, they could investigate, get his tax returns, protect Mueller, investigate the swampy cabinet members, etc.  Second, in local office.  It is local officials who make sure we have free and fair elections.  Who those competent dems are depends on the district.  

The GOP needs to be marginalized and broken.  Anyone willing to enable the traitorous behavior on display this week, kiddie concentration camps, and Trump's racism, does not have the moral rectitude to be dog catcher in Oklahoma.  We need a strong two parties, but the GOP cannot be one of them. 

 

The dems shouldn't concentrate on luring moderates over--the dems will be villainized by the Fox News crowd as Communist! Socialist! Marxist! no matter what they do.  But they do need to stop all the infighting and find candidates who will be good representatives for their districts, both due to their competence and how their views relate to their constituents.  Some may want say, universal health insurance, and others won't and that's a reasonable debate to have.  But we need to move to a position where we can have that debate and one side of the debate is not dominated by a traitorous lunatic fringe.

[atomheartbevo 88751]

The Mueller stuff could easily depress Political Party 1 turnout in November, among those more “casual” PP1 members who weren’t really on the Trump Train, but didn’t care for Hillary.  That’s the major impact on the short-term   Long-term, could see some PP1 members completely leave the PP1, but no idea if they will help a third party gain traction.

Demographics and the population migration won’t necessarily change a party, but they could definitely give a party a major boost.   Texas became a minority-majority state  in 2005, faster than originally projected, and every day a shitload of people from more liberal states are moving in.

When a state like Texas reverts back to Democrat control, where does PP1 make the changes to account for that?

I will say this, there really isn’t a better time for a third party to stir the pot.  Advertising and outreach are cheap and easy. Both parties have done things to piss their members off.

Edited July 18, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[WBT 20132]

Interesting topic

54 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I believe that a balance between the parties is the natural state of American politics.  A movement of voters from the D to R will result in certain Rs becoming disillusioned and realigning to the Ds.  That's not saying "everything will just work out on its own," but merely recognizing that the parties adjust to win roughly 50% of the time.  Those adjustments can result in significant damage to our country. 

I completely agree with you here.  I think there is going to be huge backlash against Trump in 2018 and 2020 and the GOP will make changes afterwards.  The GOP establishment doesn't like Trump but he got results so for now they are along for the ride.

[Tuco 5003]

3 minutes ago, WBT said:

Interesting topic

I completely agree with you here.  I think there is going to be huge backlash against Trump in 2018 and 2020 and the GOP will make changes afterwards.  The GOP establishment doesn't like Trump but he got results so for now they are along for the ride.

My fear is that those adjustments may include a more polished approach on the really shitty policies.  Trump obviously tapped into an angst that's been out there for a while and underrepresented, thankfully. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

34 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The only way the Mueller investigation is relevant to the discussion is if his findings are so shocking and obvious that Trumpsters become disillusioned and basically marginalize themselves, in which case #2 happens more quickly. 

If Mueller finds nothing, Trump is still an abhorrent piece of shit in the view of many Republicans.

I agree about trump being an abhorrent piece if shit. He is alienating many in his own party, now more than ever.

The Mueller investigation is vitally important in many aspects because of the election and the fact that it is now public that our Intelligence community determined that the election was interfered with. Even if that traitor won't admit it.

[David Dennison 17660]

21 minutes ago, Tuco said:

My fear is that those adjustments may include a more polished approach on the really shitty policies.  Trump obviously tapped into an angst that's been out there for a while and underrepresented, thankfully. 

But the people who best represent that angst are a minority of voters, many of whom die every day.

[Tuco 5003]

14 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I agree about trump being an abhorrent piece if shit. He is alienating many in his own party, now more than ever.

The Mueller investigation is vitally important in many aspects because of the election and the fact that it is now public that our Intelligence community determined that the election was interfered with. Even if that traitor won't admit it.

My point is the party evolution/realignment has more to do with factors other than Trump.  Trump just tapped into it. There has been a growing disconnect between "working class whites" for years.  There has been a growing anti-immigration sentiment for years.  According to CAIR polling, Muslims supported GWB 72% to Gore's 8% in 2000.  Can you imagine a Republican candidate even openly courting the Muslim vote today? 

[Tuco 5003]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But the people who best represent that angst are a minority of voters, many of whom die every day.

I think 2016 proved out that the minority was larger than expected.  I think it is also younger than assumed. 

Trump had 8 point advantage amongst 65+, compared to Romney's 12 point advantage.  Trump had a 39 point advantage amongst uneducated whites, compared to a 25 point advantage that Romney had.  Bill Clinton basically broke even with uneducated whites. 

Pew

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

My point is the party evolution/realignment has more to do with factors other than Trump.  Trump just tapped into it. There has been a growing disconnect between "working class whites" for years.  There has been a growing anti-immigration sentiment for years.  According to CAIR polling, Muslims supported GWB 72% to Gore's 8% in 2000.  Can you imagine a Republican candidate even openly courting the Muslim vote today? 

Until conservatives and/or Republicans openly embrace the ideals of cultural diversity and the benefits it has to offer, no. I'm sure there are fringe conservatives/Republicans who do,  but they certainly aren't mainstream.

Just as an aside, I may be on the fringe here myself, but it irritates the everliving fuck out of me when people are classified by skin color and called "whites" or "blacks." IMHO, it devalues everyone as people and citizens.

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

Just want to give props for the thread title.

[RayDog 682]

On 7/18/2018 at 11:15 PM, WBT said:

Interesting topic

I completely agree with you here.  I think there is going to be huge backlash against Trump in 2018 and 2020 and the GOP will make changes afterwards.  The GOP establishment doesn't like Trump but he got results so for now they are along for the ride.

I expect Trump will lose the 2020 election but keep control of the Republican party for a run in 2024 while continuing to tweet every day.

Edited July 20, 2018 by RayDog

[GopherRock 1759]

On 7/18/2018 at 9:31 AM, Tuco said:

Topics that might be part of party realignment:

1. Free College

In my opinion, it's somewhat ridiculous to talk about free college while throughout the country the various states are moving pulling resources from the state colleges.  We are losing a battle for affordable college, but reaching for free college.  What to do at the federal level: use federal grant money, and maybe even guaranteed loans, as the hammer to force states to fund their colleges.  Many of the state colleges are land-grant colleges, originally seeded by the federal government.  Much of their research is driven by federal money.  Obviously, much of the tuition they charged is financed by federal money.  And what is happening to them is unacceptable. 

How about changing financial aid computation formulas so that it's less reliant on the parent's net worth? If parents either own real property or have anything that vaguely resembles retirement savings, the chances of the student getting grants is zero. 

 

As for the realignment, I remember when Republicans fought the Russians. 

[Tuco 5003]

How about changing financial aid computation formulas so that it's less reliant on the parent's net worth? If parents either own real property or have anything that vaguely resembles retirement savings, the chances of the student getting grants is zero. 
 

From a cynical/pragmatic political standpoint, this makes sense. I think the current system generates hostility in the upper middle-class and whites towards lower income groups and minorities. And, I think the current system has ignored the impact of the skyrocketing college expenses.

[NoRagrets 1120]

Republicans will have to rebrand. They can't squeeze any more votes from gerrymandering and voter ID laws, and reverse the demographic trends.

theyll rebrand like they did after W. probably into a more agnostic pro business party.

[Guest]

On 7/18/2018 at 10:15 AM, WBT said:

Interesting topic

I completely agree with you here.  I think there is going to be huge backlash against Trump in 2018 and 2020 and the GOP will make changes afterwards.  The GOP establishment doesn't like Trump but he got results so for now they are along for the ride.

The echo chamber some of you choose to surround yourselves with makes you feel like the whole country is enraged at Trump.  The whole country isn’t Berkeley  and Travis County.

 

 

I do agree the election will bear that out.

 

I do think Trump is a shitty person, but for different reasons than many on here.  That hasn’t been a showstopper in politics in a long time.

[kopp0e 1135]

On 7/18/2018 at 11:13 AM, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Until conservatives and/or Republicans openly embrace the ideals of cultural diversity and the benefits it has to offer, no. I'm sure there are fringe conservatives/Republicans who do,  but they certainly aren't mainstream.

Just as an aside, I may be on the fringe here myself, but it irritates the everliving fuck out of me when people are classified by skin color and called "whites" or "blacks." IMHO, it devalues everyone as people and citizens.

Breaking down one way to end the race classification system would be place all ethnicities in 1 of 3 groups: negro/ mulatto/ albino, using the shade number system...

This would eventually lead to a more inclusive nation, as people are looked at based on themselves, and not on a nation of origin, or ancestry of de facto cast systems...

[Aqua Buddha 13902]

14 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

Republicans will have to rebrand. They can't squeeze any more votes from gerrymandering and voter ID laws, and reverse the demographic trends.

theyll rebrand like they did after W. probably into a more agnostic pro business party.

Demographic trends are the key here.  The average age of the GOP base voter is probably in the high 50's to lower 60's.  (I do know that the average age of the Fox viewer is around 68 and Bill O'Reilly's show was 72.)  Within the next 10 years, we're going to have a massive demographic shift in this country and a lot of brands are going to be left out in the cold and the GOP is one of them.

[NoRagrets 1120]

We really need a third party. Moderate on domestic policy. Pro business. Pro democracy and NATO. Anti deficit spending in times of expansion. Pro using the size of USA government to negotiate, such as for drug prices.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Republicans will be the party of deplorables for a while.  They’ve embraced the cancer.  It’s terminal.  The easiest way out for the GOP is a resounding ass kicking in elections.  That has to happen first before they even consider rebranding.  

We’re looking at a 10+ year project here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

2 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

We really need a third party. Moderate on domestic policy. Pro business. Pro democracy and NATO. Anti deficit spending in times of expansion. Pro using the size of USA government to negotiate, such as for drug prices.

We need a third party to transform one of the existing parties to their image. 

This is known as a movement.

Trump actually did this...with tons of help from the Tea Party movement and Kremlin.

As history has shown, third parties are not viable competitors in our system over the long term.

A third party always fizzles out, gets absorbed into one of the parties, or replaces a major party.

[kopp0e 1135]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

The echo chamber some of you choose to surround yourselves with makes you feel like the whole country is enraged at Trump.  The whole country isn’t Berkeley  and Travis County.

 

 

I do agree the election will bear that out.

 

I do think Trump is a shitty person, but for different reasons than many on here.  That hasn’t been a showstopper in politics in a long time.

We just need more than a 2 party system, as what we have is no system, when one loses, the other party just waits until the other party errors in some way to take the spot back...

If we  had successful options as Tea/ Socialist/ Independent/ Libertarian/ Whigs/ Black Panther/ Organization of Afro-American Unity/ Poor People's Campaign/ Brown Berets, (for example), it would counter the two party system of just Democrat & Republican to where leaders would actually need to listen to it's people's wants and needs as a society... As a two party system is as close as you can get to a no party system, many nations in the EU for instance, have 5 or 6 legit political parties, which leads to a more earnest campaign, as candidates have no idea when their next shot at winning might be...

[Guest]

There should be ZERO political  parties. 

 

Campaign and govern on your own merit. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

16 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

Breaking down one way to end the race classification system would be place all ethnicities in 1 of 3 groups: negro/ mulatto/ albino, using the shade number system...

This would eventually lead to a more inclusive nation, as people are looked at based on themselves, and not on a nation of origin, or ancestry of de facto cast systems...

I think this is at least a step in a better direction, however it's still largely based on the antiquated idea of "race." The human race is the only race and its comprised of many wonderful cultures that all need to be understood and shared collectively. The problem I find with the system above is that it will lead to castes being formed and the current subjugation of the "non-albino" will absolutely take place.

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We need a third party to transform one of the existing parties to their image. 

This is known as a movement.

Trump actually did this...with tons of help from the Tea Party movement and Kremlin.

As history has shown, third parties are not viable competitors in our system over the long term.

A third party always fizzles out, gets absorbed into one of the parties, or replaces a major party.

In order for additional parties to not fizzle out, the electoral system we currently use, first-past-the-post, would need to be changed to the Alternate vote. Here is a video explaining how it works and why its superior to the fptp. It's not perfect, but it does enable more than two parties to be highly active and have better odds of winning elections.

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

30 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

In order for additional parties to not fizzle out, the electoral system we currently use, first-past-the-post, would need to be changed to the Alternate vote. Here is a video explaining how it works and why its superior to the fptp. It's not perfect, but it does enable more than two parties to be highly active and have better odds of winning elections.

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

I actually love this idea. 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Tuco 5003]

25 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

 As a two party system is as close as you can get to a no party system, many nations in the EU for instance, have 5 or 6 legit political parties, which leads to a more earnest campaign, as candidates have no idea when their next shot at winning might be...

I think you have to change the political structure to get that.  Go to a parliamentary system with the PM selected by the votes of the parliament.  I'd be down with that.  As a bonus, there would practically zero chance that an idiot like Trump would take the top position, as he would be elected by his peers.  As a downside, it does put more power in the hands of the parties themselves.   

[kopp0e 1135]

Well, in that case, the system would be better than what we have in only having one true alternative to which ever party is in power...

[Guest]

This video captures perfectly how innovation and change to our political system is received...

 

[David Dennison 17660]

On 7/20/2018 at 8:04 AM, Tuco said:

I think you have to change the political structure to get that.  Go to a parliamentary system with the PM selected by the votes of the parliament.  I'd be down with that.  As a bonus, there would practically zero chance that an idiot like Trump would take the top position, as he would be elected by his peers.  As a downside, it does put more power in the hands of the parties themselves.   

Well, we can't have that because our beat up, old-ass constitutional system is venerated by the brainwashed masses as the greatest system of government ever created. 

It isn't. It's outdated and needs a complete overhaul.

[Tuco 5003]

Well, we can't have that because our beat up, old-ass constitutional system is venerated by the brainwashed masses as the greatest system of government ever created. 
It isn't. It's outdated and needs a complete overhaul.

While I tend to agree, I don’t see getting 2/3 to 3/4 consensus on changing it to something else in today’s political climate, or any time in the near future. I think we need to focus on working within the system we have.

[Clob94 121]

On July 20, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We need a third party to transform one of the existing parties to their image. 

This is known as a movement.

Trump actually did this...with tons of help from the Tea Party movement and Kremlin.

As history has shown, third parties are not viable competitors in our system over the long term.

A third party always fizzles out, gets absorbed into one of the parties, or replaces a major party.

I've been preaching this since I was 18. Now why, do you suppose, that no valid third party has ever been able to find viability? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

1 minute ago, Clob94 said:

I've been preaching this since I was 18. Now why, do you suppose, that no valid third party has ever been able to find viability? 

Infrastructure and media exposure issues 

[Clob94 121]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Infrastructure and media exposure issues 

Let's focus on the media portion of this for the purposes of this discussion. 

A young up and Comer on the right will be bashed by msnbc, cnn, nyt, etc.

A young up and Comer on the left is bashed by Fox, rush, talk radio etc. 

An up and Comer from the middle gets bashed on all sides to prevent said leader from "stealing" from both sides.

[David Dennison 17660]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Infrastructure and media exposure issues 

This, and the fact that any real issue presented by a third party get co-opted by one of the two major parties, thereby eliminating its appeal.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, we can't have that because our beat up, old-ass constitutional system is venerated by the brainwashed masses as the greatest system of government ever created. 

It isn't. It's outdated and needs a complete overhaul.

It's not the Constitution that's the problem. It's the people elected that are deviating from the Constitution that are fucking things up. The Constitution is a set of guidelines to ensure the government can't overreach. Specifically outlined in the 9th Amendment. It may be necessary to draft a document outlining the human rights that will be afforded to non-citizens to ensure their inalienable human rights are enumerated and preserved. The US voted in favor of the UN Bill of Human Rights in 1948 along with 48 other countries. However, that doesn't mean it was signed into law in the US or anywhere else. Our Constitution is a guideline for the Rights and Liberties of every man, woman, and child of the US. It is a shining beacon for the entire world for ensuring citizens are free. The problem is not the Constitution.

[David Dennison 17660]

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

It's not the Constitution that's the problem. It's the people elected that are deviating from the Constitution that are fucking things up. The Constitution is a set of guidelines to ensure the government can't overreach. Specifically outlined in the 9th Amendment. It may be necessary to draft a document outlining the human rights that will be afforded to non-citizens to ensure their inalienable human rights are enumerated and preserved. The US voted in favor of the UN Bill of Human Rights in 1948 along with 48 other countries. However, that doesn't mean it was signed into law in the US or anywhere else. Our Constitution is a guideline for the Rights and Liberties of every man, woman, and child of the US. It is a shining beacon for the entire world for ensuring citizens are free. The problem is not the Constitution.

Three-fifths and fugitive slave clauses notwithstanding, of course.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1600]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Three-fifths and fugitive slave clauses notwithstanding, of course.

Our fore fathers weren't perfect people and they certainly fucked up when they allowed slavery to occur in the US. I don't care that at that time in human history it was common practice, I condemn them for their decision on this matter. It does not matter if someone else does wrong, we need to always make the best choice because it is the best choice for humanity.

Fortunately and thankfully, Amendment 13 to the Constitution repealed the three fifths compromise that was previously legal for taxation apportionment under Article I Section 2. Amendment 13 also officially repealed the Right to own slaves or hold anyone under any form of indentured servitude except where a person has been tried and convicted in a court of law. Under Constitutional protection, no person can be collected and jailed for exercising their Constitutional Rights and thrown away no matter how disparate they may be or to what minority their views, opinions, or positions place them in. A person must be tried and convicted by a jury of their peers before any Constitutional Rights are eschewed. I don't agree that a prison force should be used as a free labor force, however electing the right people can get that repealed. The ability to make amendments, repeal, or otherwise grow with the world is why the United States Constitution is a living document.

[Tuco 5003]

Regarding Bernie holding rallies in Kansas...

Bernie is seen as lefty fringe outside the Democratic mainstream. And, on some issues, economic issues like healthcare and free college, that’s fair. (Or it was in 2016.) But he is more centrist than many in the Dem party on social or culture war issues. He believes his version of a progressive platform, which leads with the economic issues rather than cultural, can win in any state.

Last year, Omaha had a Dem candidate for mayor, Mello, who was moderately pro choice, but had compromised on some abortion bills at the state level- things like requiring a dr to be physically present during the procedure. Bernie and Keith Ellison came in for a rally, giving some “future of the party” type quotes, NARAL freaked, and Tom Perez sided with NARAL. Bernie knows you can’t win in 50 states with focusing on a strict pro choice message. You also don’t see him talk about gay rights or black lives matter that much. Regardless how important you think those issues are, you are fighting people’s upbringing, their religion, and their prejudices to sell them on your position. That’s not the case with economic issues. Any priest who weighs in against expanded healthcare is doing so strictly out of political beliefs, not religious ones. It’s really difficult to convince some sixty year old Betty that Mexicans aren’t scary; it’s easier to tell them that their grandkids should be able to go to college without racking up 60k in debt.

That’s not to say Bernie doesn’t believe in those social issues, but it’s not the part of the platform he’s trying to sell.

[Guest]

These "Mexicans" don't scare 60 year old Betty

These do.

 

Keep blaming the old white folks for not "understanding'  though...

Edited July 21, 2018 by slorch

[Chad Fuck 17259]

^Those aren't Mexicans, dumbass. 

 

[Tuco 5003]

These "Mexicans" don't scare 60 year old Betty

These do.

 
Keep blaming the old white folks for not "understanding'  though...

Which version of “Mexicans” do you think 60 year old Betty actually runs in to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Which version of “Mexicans” do you think 60 year old Betty actually runs in to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the point.  She ain't as skeered as some folks think. 

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

On 7/20/2018 at 7:09 AM, kopp0e said:

Breaking down one way to end the race classification system would be place all ethnicities in 1 of 3 groups: negro/ mulatto/ albino, using the shade number system...

This would eventually lead to a more inclusive nation, as people are looked at based on themselves, and not on a nation of origin, or ancestry of de facto cast systems...

Or maybe just end race classification altogether... 

Nah, that’d make too much sense.