Like I said, it's tired. You have heard the contrary argument to the shit you're spewing a million times by now.
Doesn't AA mean discriminating on the basis of race for the purposes of hiring and college admissions?
Whereas progressives endorse and have implemented deliberate and systemic racism, and give it the name affirmative action.
If we rely on King's standard of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then it stands to reason he would be as displeased with democrats as he would republicans.
Like I said, it's tired. You have heard the contrary argument to the shit you're spewing a million times by now.
No, he absolutely would not be as displeased with Democrats as he would Republicans. Please don't equivocate.
MLK believed that improving racial equality involved redistributing power and money in favor of the less fortunate. Republicans oppose this.
MLK preferred peaceful protest, but understood why people riot and that the solution was to fix the social issues that led them to riot. Republicans are about order for order's sake.
MLK objected to whites who argue that black people should protest in a "more convenient season." Republicans are the ones telling black people that they shouldn't kneel at football games (or on the streets, or...)
MLK railed against excessive materialism and militarism. Republicans love materialism and militarism.
Modern Republicans are curiously reluctant to condemn racist attacks, or a President who suggests there are "very nice people" among white supremacists. And let's not forget: KKK members and neo-Nazis love Trump.
And lastly: the bill to make MLK Day a holiday was primarily opposed by Republicans; all the currently sitting politicians who voted against it are Republican. (I suspect he'd have been too modest to want a day for himself, but nonetheless)
I'm sure MLK would have issues with modern Democrats, but based on the issues and voting records, there's no way in hell he'd say they were as bad as Republicans.
The religious fanatics deserve to have their shenanigans exposed while most bona fide Christians have lost their flavor just as Christ admonished them against.I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
So tell me the contrary argument. My memory fails me.
Something tells me MLK would object to the weaponization of race that has occurred in leftist circles. He would object to the fact that democrats thrive in environments of racial strife and seem determined to sustain it. This is evident in silly theories like unconscious bias and white privilege, where white people are racist even though they've done nothing racist. I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
Oh I'm so sure King would favor the left shutting up their mouths while all that shit went down in Charlottesville. /s Too bad conservatives and people like you prefer silence in the face of injustice.Something tells me MLK would object to the weaponization of race that has occurred in leftist circles. He would object to the fact that democrats thrive in environments of racial strife and seem determined to sustain it. This is evident in silly theories like unconscious bias and white privilege, where white people are racist even though they've done nothing racist. I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
Maybe a quote from King's book Why We Can't Wait might clear that stance upDoesn't AA mean discriminating on the basis of race for the purposes of hiring and college admissions?
"It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we did not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on an equal basis? . . . {I}t is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line of a race three hundred yeas after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner."
Er... no? Just the opposite, in fact.
Remember, one of his major criticisms was that "white moderate" tendency to object to protests, to tell people not to talk about race issues, to insist on maintaining the status quo. He wanted racial harmony, but do you notice how he did it? Oh, right -- by being vocal about it and protesting in inconvenient places at inconvenient times. You need strife to effect social change, or else you're just that "white moderate" who's obsessed with preserving order at all costs.
Come to think of it, that "white moderate" sounds a whole lot like you: let's not make race an issue. Stop talking. Don't rock the boat.
Maybe a quote from Kin's book Why We Can't wait might clear that stance up
Oh I'm so sure King would favor the left shutting up their mouths while all that shit went down in Charlottesville. /s Too bad conservatives and people like you prefer silence in the face of injustice.
Quote the person who said that. Careful you are dangling your toe in the Trump lake of making shit up.We don't. What the hell are you talking about? Show me an injustice and I'll call it out. Telling me, "vote democrat or you're racist and siding against justice" is ridiculous.
Wow, a minor attempt at making amends concerning one tiny result of racism, is racist. As always, it's the acknowledging of racism that's racist. Stay classy.
Don't make race an issue? Are you kidding? It's almost all that's ever talked about, no matter who is president.
When the NYT posts opinion pieces saying that white supremacists have a fetish for asian women (who, somehow, aren't white), then I think it's time we take a step back. Perhaps the NYT writer should just say that to stamp out white supremacy, we need to outlaw interracial marriage.
Doesn't AA mean discriminating on the basis of race for the purposes of hiring and college admissions?
Most segregated place in America these days is public schools in NYC.
Whereas progressives endorse and have implemented deliberate and systemic racism, and give it the name affirmative action.
If we rely on King's standard of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then it stands to reason he would be as displeased with democrats as he would republicans.
Most segregated place in America these days is public schools in NYC.
So then why do you object to Democrats tackling race issues? You call it weaponizing, but the whole point of dealing with race issues is to make people uncomfortable, challenge them on it, not to let things slide. There is such a thing as going over the top, but I don't think the Dems cross that line nearly as much as you think they do.
I sincerely, sincerely doubt this. People in America are still not judged based on his standard and I strongly suspect he would endorse measures to compensate for that.
Now let's look at history from Nixon forward.