CDZ How did we get to this point?

[LoneLaugher]

Arrogant and miserable people rely on the excuse that “the young people” are being indoctrinated and that explains why their world view is being tossed into the shitter.

My goodness, gracious.

In your world, that would make arson, vandalism and larceny the ultimate expression of humble and content human beings.

Yeah. I figured you’d know that I was talking to you there. Your way of thinking is facing extinction. But, by all means, scream and holler all you wish. It won’t help.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yeah. I figured you’d know that I was talking to you there. Your way of thinking is facing extinction. But, by all means, scream and holler all you wish. It won’t help.

I may be arrogant, but far from miserable. I own my own business, I have an active social life and am quite content with my life. If you had any intuitive understanding of human nature, you would realize that the actual miserable people are blm and antifa. They do what they do because they have nothing going for them and are destroying whatever they can in a nihilistic rage because of it.

I do have to agree with you on one point. People like me who actually think instead of just marching in lock step DO seem to be facing extinction.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. I figured you’d know that I was talking to you there. Your way of thinking is facing extinction. But, by all means, scream and holler all you wish. It won’t help.

I may be arrogant, but far from miserable. I own my own business, I have an active social life and am quite content with my life. If you had any intuitive understanding of human nature, you would realize that the actual miserable people are blm and antifa. They do what they do because they have nothing going for them and are destroying whatever they can in a nihilistic rage because of it.

I do have to agree with you on one point. People like me who actually think instead of just marching in lock step DO seem to be facing extinction.

Anyone who views our rightful, if sluggish, move toward diversity and equal rights for all as a threat to their happiness and prosperity is a miserable shit. That’s you.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Anyone who views our rightful, if sluggish, move toward diversity and equal rights for all as a threat to their happiness and prosperity is a miserable shit. That’s you.

This IS the clean debate forum, you know.

I have said nothing whatsoever about diverstity or not supporting equal rights. I simply oppose our manipulative media that seeks to propel racial strife by using underhanded methods that any intelligent person should be able to see right through. I listed several of these tricks above, and so if you are incable of comprehending them, that says more about you than it does me.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

it appears to be the foundation of the arguments and actions of the Left.

But if such graphs [as we discussed] superimpose race on given issues [or perhaps better – interpret given issues through the lens of race], how is that not imposing a racial narrative on whatever issue is protested in the manner I said?

The thing is -- if you’re going to cite this as a 'game' the ‘left’ played for years, and which led to the installation of a President you don’t support – it seems fair to ask that the ‘difference’ be clarified.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

 

[JoeB131]

Think of it as race being along the X axis and class/poverty being along the Y axis, with a line running at a 45-degree angle. The inference appears to be that the darker the skin, the more an "identity" group is prone to poverty and in desperate need of "help".

When we constantly defend, spin for, attack for and avoid/ignore/minimize the worst behaviors of a person or group, all we're ultimately doing is enabling the worst impulses of that person or group and retarding their growth, self discipline and progress.

The Trumpsters do it with Trump, the Left does it with Black Americans. Just another function of the binary, tribal thought processes that are causing so much division and damage.

Mac is one of those "Pull Yourself up by your Bootstraps Types".

It's actually impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. As a wise man said, "You didn't build that."

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Think of it as race being along the X axis and class/poverty being along the Y axis, with a line running at a 45-degree angle. The inference appears to be that the darker the skin, the more an "identity" group is prone to poverty and in desperate need of "help".

When we constantly defend, spin for, attack for and avoid/ignore/minimize the worst behaviors of a person or group, all we're ultimately doing is enabling the worst impulses of that person or group and retarding their growth, self discipline and progress.

The Trumpsters do it with Trump, the Left does it with Black Americans. Just another function of the binary, tribal thought processes that are causing so much division and damage.

Mac is one of those "Pull Yourself up by your Bootstraps Types".

It's actually impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. As a wise man said, "You didn't build that."

Greetings, JolB131:

A novice, I'm not in position to make determinations about who is what. I'll giving Mac1958 time and opportunity to clarify on the point I've raised.

I affirm the Marxist interpretation of history. That constitutes me 'left.' What is usually labeled 'left' is [as I see it] more aptly designated the 'pseudo-left.' Marxists define 'class' by material and productive relations within the Capitalist system of social organization. Not an instrument of class rule, race is deliberately injected into the discourse to divert attention from the ruling class and to thwart working class unity.

Opposition to racism has always proceeded on the premise that race doesn't matter; it is invalid as a sociological classification. There is one race and it is the human race.

Thank you for making yourself known.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

 

[Mac1958]

it appears to be the foundation of the arguments and actions of the Left.

But if such graphs [as we discussed] superimpose race on given issues [or perhaps better – interpret given issues through the lens of race], how is that not imposing a racial narrative on whatever issue is protested in the manner I said?

The thing is -- if you’re going to cite this as a 'game' the ‘left’ played for years, and which led to the installation of a President you don’t support – it seems fair to ask that the ‘difference’ be clarified.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

No, I'm saying that it is. The issue of race is the constant, and IS imposed on virtually every other issue or news item whenever possible, no matter how much of a stretch it takes.

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

FYI == My stalker (JoeB) has been on ignore for a couple of years now. He continues to post to me and about me, though. One of the primary reasons I gave up on him is that he constantly lies about my positions. You're asking specific questions to determine my positions and thoughts, and he just lazily & dishonestly fabricates them.

 

[Mac1958]

How many have ever been happy with the choices offered, yes again I will vote against instead of for some one. that said this time I find it critical to vote for what is best for those over 55 years old. Trumps new executive order will start the defunding of Social Security. if reelected he plans to continue that next year. this will do little to help & will cause much hurt to seniors, as Social Security is COMPLETELY funded through payroll taxes. The rich like him wont need it when they retire, but what about the millions of seniors & those who have paid into it all there lives, then have it defunded be for they can collect ?

You really would think that this would be obvious, but remember: Many of his supporters don't like Social Security or Medicare, and don't mind seeing them damaged or removed. The incredible part of this is how many of them will be dependent on it for a significant part of their income and healthcare in retirement.

Trump's entire presidency is being guided along by all the voices who are causing so much damage: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Carlson, Mnuchin, Ross, Kudlow, Moore. Pure ideologues, zero empathy, eyes closed shut. And the supporters just eat it up. Group psychosis, that's the only name I can give it.

 

[JoeB131]

Greetings, JolB131:

A novice, I'm not in position to make determinations about who is what. I'll giving Mac1958 time and opportunity to clarify on the point I've raised.

You probably shouldn't waste your time. Mac starts out on a faulty premise and he usually won't let it go no matter how much contrary evidence you provide. It's just his thing.

I affirm the Marxist interpretation of history. That constitutes me 'left.' What is usually labeled 'left' is [as I see it] more aptly designated the 'pseudo-left.' Marxists define 'class' by material and productive relations within the Capitalist system of social organization. Not an instrument of class rule, race is deliberately injected into the discourse to divert attention from the ruling class and to thwart working class unity.

Okay, you know what, Marxism doesn't work, because it ignores human nature.

Capitalism doesn't work because it indulges the worst of human nature.

It's time to stop acting like these are the only two choices on the menu.

 

[JoeB131]

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about, Trotsky. Mac keeps repeating this lie.

Trump did not win because "White people finally got fed up with being accused of racism." They were already racist. Trump got 46% of the vote and 58% of the White Vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote and 59% of the white vote. In fact, the Same percentage of White folks have been voting Republican for years. The only year it dipped below 55% is when some stupid white people decided they liked Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

Hillary did not lose because "White People were tired of being accused of racism."

She lost because too many white people who normally do the right thing and vote democratic voted for third parties, and because Black folks stayed home in 2016.

FYI == My stalker (JoeB) has been on ignore for a couple of years now. He continues to post to me and about me, though. One of the primary reasons I gave up on him is that he constantly lies about my positions. You're asking specific questions to determine my positions and thoughts, and he just lazily & dishonestly fabricates them.

In short, you continue to get your backside kicked for lying, but now you don't have to get your feelings hurt. As much as you whine about imaginary "Safe Spaces" in college, (you know, College kids not wanting their fees to pay for Nazis to show up to speak on their campus) you retreated to one pretty quickly.

Trump's entire presidency is being guided along by all the voices who are causing so much damage: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Carlson, Mnuchin, Ross, Kudlow, Moore. Pure ideologues, zero empathy, eyes closed shut. And the supporters just eat it up. Group psychosis, that's the only name I can give it.

But how are you any better? Frankly, I"m not seeing it. You were all for Trump when the Stock Market was reaching new highs and he let Wall Street do whatever it wanted. You seemed more angry at Berkeley kids who didn't want to hear whatever racist filth comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter. (Even though even Fox News doesn't put Ann Coulter on the air anymore.)

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Your thoughts?

The three-part organization of the government is inherently flawed, and cannot meet the demands of diversity that the nation has evolved to, nor the expectations of a relatively more sophisticated citizenry than the people of the 18th century.

Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the founders of the United States are not turning in their graves because of the misuse of the Constitution, but rather, because of the continued exercise of their inadequate formulation of the government. The expansion of the government security departments, and advanced technology, would direct the founders towards a more accurate design of a more reliable orderly republic government. They would certainly not insist that their centuries old design of a three-part separation system of checks and balances was peerless; and most likely, they would be quick to recognize that the partisan strategies that congest the legislative processes that lead to the social disorderliness that we endure is caused by the lack of an orderly system.

The three-part separation theory was improperly deployed, and the subsequent inefficiencies of that deployment are approaching the ultimate failure conditions - political gridlock, theatrics, and strategies, cause perpetual dissent, social disorder, and rebellion.

 

[Mac1958]

Your thoughts?

The three-part organization of the government is inherently flawed, and cannot meet the demands of diversity that the nation has evolved to, nor the expectations of a relatively more sophisticated citizenry than the people of the 18th century.

Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the founders of the United States are not turning in their graves because of the misuse of the Constitution, but rather, because of the continued exercise of their inadequate formulation of the government. The expansion of the government security departments, and advanced technology, would direct the founders towards a more accurate design of a more reliable orderly republic government. They would certainly not insist that their centuries old design of a three-part separation system of checks and balances was peerless; and most likely, they would be quick to recognize that the partisan strategies that congest the legislative processes that lead to the social disorderliness that we endure is caused by the lack of an orderly system.

The three-part separation theory was improperly deployed, and the subsequent inefficiencies of that deployment are approaching the ultimate failure conditions - political gridlock, theatrics, and strategies, cause perpetual dissent, social disorder, and rebellion.

I don't think it's the system as much as it is the implementation of the system.

Seems to me that the system makes assumptions that were appropriate and effective for essentially two centuries, but no longer apply: It assumes that our elected "leaders" (*cough*) knew and understood that a certain quantity and quality of communication and collaboration are required for a republic to function properly, and that we'd maintain those practices. That we can agree to operate with a basic level of respect, dignity and honesty.

Simply put, the Constitution assumes that we're AT LEAST on the same PAGE. And that appears to no longer be the case.

 

[candycorn]

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about, Trotsky. Mac keeps repeating this lie.

Trump did not win because "White people finally got fed up with being accused of racism." They were already racist. Trump got 46% of the vote and 58% of the White Vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote and 59% of the white vote. In fact, the Same percentage of White folks have been voting Republican for years. The only year it dipped below 55% is when some stupid white people decided they liked Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

View attachment 373264

Hillary did not lose because "White People were tired of being accused of racism."

She lost because too many white people who normally do the right thing and vote democratic voted for third parties, and because Black folks stayed home in 2016.

FYI == My stalker (JoeB) has been on ignore for a couple of years now. He continues to post to me and about me, though. One of the primary reasons I gave up on him is that he constantly lies about my positions. You're asking specific questions to determine my positions and thoughts, and he just lazily & dishonestly fabricates them.

In short, you continue to get your backside kicked for lying, but now you don't have to get your feelings hurt. As much as you whine about imaginary "Safe Spaces" in college, (you know, College kids not wanting their fees to pay for Nazis to show up to speak on their campus) you retreated to one pretty quickly.

Trump's entire presidency is being guided along by all the voices who are causing so much damage: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Carlson, Mnuchin, Ross, Kudlow, Moore. Pure ideologues, zero empathy, eyes closed shut. And the supporters just eat it up. Group psychosis, that's the only name I can give it.

But how are you any better? Frankly, I"m not seeing it. You were all for Trump when the Stock Market was reaching new highs and he let Wall Street do whatever it wanted. You seemed more angry at Berkeley kids who didn't want to hear whatever racist filth comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter. (Even though even Fox News doesn't put Ann Coulter on the air anymore.)

And there was that Milo Yamawhatever.

A negative really can't be proven but I think that when you examine 2016 and compare/contrast it to other elections; historians are going to find that a lot of people who were going to probably vote for Hilary just thought Hillary was going to win and stayed home on election day. They thought that and there was no great shift in the electorate. The election results would have been the same if Jeb Bush had been the nominee. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

It's actually impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Agreed! And the US' 'rags to riches' bourgeoisie bedtime story is insignificant statistically.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

it appears to be the foundation of the arguments and actions of the Left.

But if such graphs [as we discussed] superimpose race on given issues [or perhaps better – interpret given issues through the lens of race], how is that not imposing a racial narrative on whatever issue is protested in the manner I said?

The thing is -- if you’re going to cite this as a 'game' the ‘left’ played for years, and which led to the installation of a President you don’t support – it seems fair to ask that the ‘difference’ be clarified.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

No, I'm saying that it is. The issue of race is the constant, and IS imposed on virtually every other issue or news item whenever possible, no matter how much of a stretch it takes.

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

‘The issue of race is the constant, and IS imposed on virtually every other issue or news item whenever possible, no matter how much of a stretch it takes.’

So we agree then. And what you say here is offered as description, NOT prescription. Got it. At issue now is the rationale for doing so.

‘Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation.’

Some I’m sure do use racial narrative that way. Yet that use and the narrative alike are used to bury the broader issue of social class. Social class is the fundamental division of society. This, the ruling class must hide from view. Identity politics, including race, are injected into civic discourse to that end. For the ruling class, ‘race’ is a ‘safe’ is a safety valve to divert public anger down other ‘harmless’ paths. The energy spent, equilibrium is restored, and prying eyes are turned away from the socially malevolent function of the bourgeoisie.

Some on the right are frustrated [and angry]; that is not without justification. But the outcome of the 2016 election was hardly a result of misused/overused racial narrative. The same is true of JoeB131’s explanation of third-party voting and low voter turnout. Such lines are answers without explanations. Here, I’ll stop. But I’m going to continue responding in reply to JoeB131 post. There, I’m offering you and JoeB131 my explanation of why an election that ought to have been won by 50 points – was lost.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about, Trotsky. Mac keeps repeating this lie.

Trump did not win because "White people finally got fed up with being accused of racism." They were already racist. Trump got 46% of the vote and 58% of the White Vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote and 59% of the white vote. In fact, the Same percentage of White folks have been voting Republican for years. The only year it dipped below 55% is when some stupid white people decided they liked Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

View attachment 373264

Hillary did not lose because "White People were tired of being accused of racism."

She lost because too many white people who normally do the right thing and vote democratic voted for third parties, and because Black folks stayed home in 2016.

FYI == My stalker (JoeB) has been on ignore for a couple of years now. He continues to post to me and about me, though. One of the primary reasons I gave up on him is that he constantly lies about my positions. You're asking specific questions to determine my positions and thoughts, and he just lazily & dishonestly fabricates them.

In short, you continue to get your backside kicked for lying, but now you don't have to get your feelings hurt. As much as you whine about imaginary "Safe Spaces" in college, (you know, College kids not wanting their fees to pay for Nazis to show up to speak on their campus) you retreated to one pretty quickly.

Trump's entire presidency is being guided along by all the voices who are causing so much damage: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Carlson, Mnuchin, Ross, Kudlow, Moore. Pure ideologues, zero empathy, eyes closed shut. And the supporters just eat it up. Group psychosis, that's the only name I can give it.

But how are you any better? Frankly, I"m not seeing it. You were all for Trump when the Stock Market was reaching new highs and he let Wall Street do whatever it wanted. You seemed more angry at Berkeley kids who didn't want to hear whatever racist filth comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter. (Even though even Fox News doesn't put Ann Coulter on the air anymore.)

JoeB131:

As I explain in my reply to Mac1958, this continues my reply to him while also engaging your point that:

‘She lost because too many white people who normally do the right thing and vote democratic voted for third parties, and because Black folks stayed home in 2016.’

Like the ‘overused’ race narrative, third parties and low turnout are ‘reasons’ without explanation. The question that begs to be asked is ‘WHY’ third party voting, and ‘WHY’ low turnout. One can say that ‘they’re disinterested, or ‘they didn’t like the options they had.’ But again, it must be asked ‘WHY.’

I’d start with the 2016 election context, a context I see substantially differently than either of you.

When Senator Obama campaigned for ‘change,’ proletarians heard a soft word for ‘revolution.’ They wanted a transformative, ‘FDR’ presidency. Instead they got more deportations of immigrants/refugees than all prior Presidents together. They got extrajudicial killings – an international war crime. Bush’ wars continued and broadened. There was the pivot to China. The economy was bled white with a near $1 trillion annual total military expenditure. Domestically, wages, pensions, health care, school budgets, public housing all suffered. Joblessness, mass incarceration, hunger and homelessness thrive. Every year, 1,000 were killed by police, who were increasingly militarized.

After Obama’s hope and change,’ H. Clinton’s campaign attacked Trump from the right [an accomplishment in itself] – for insufficient hostility against Russia. She even committed to reviewing US nuclear policy – a clear indication that some sections of the ruling class want to scrap the US’ ‘no first nuclear strike’ policy!

Faced with a false ‘choice’ between a symbol of corrupt Washington insiderism and militaristic war criminal, and a despicable miscreant vomited up from the criminal underworld – no ‘blame’ falls on the 46+% of those eligible to vote who made the principled decision not to vote. Under such conditions, elections are a lie. This also means that the Constitution is a lie. And the institutions and processes of state are a lie. The beatific vision of glories yet to be revealed – ever just around the corner of the NEXT election cycle – is a lie. The national narratives which define who we are, what we are about, where we are going and how we are to get there – all of this together is a lie. It is not to be believed.

The wonder is that anyone voted at all! I offer that as an explanation of the ‘WHY’ of the 2016 election.

History has caught up with the United States of America. There is no podium in the country where a politician of either party can stand and speak to the working class authoritatively, and especially to working class youth. The bourgeoisie parties squandered the public allegiance. People are waking. Nowhere is that more evident today than with the response of the whole ruling class to the COVID pandemic – forcing children into schools so parents can be forced into factories to enrich the obscenely wealthy. Why should they agree?

The ruling class deserted the working class to its own destiny. The only rational response is that the proletariat completely and finally abandon of the ruling class to its own destiny.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

Edit: Clarification.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Question for Mac. Do you believe that Biden is in the game for us ego?

I think Biden is an old-fashioned, glad-handing, back-slapping career politician whose primary motivation here is saving the country from Trump and Trumpism. Understandable. It's also clear that he is in cognitive decline and has no more business running for President than does Trump. And that's the problem, which brings me back to my question.

Career politician who got rich off of taxpayers. His whole family got rich. A lot like Bernie and all the rest.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Looking at the "options" we have in November for President, I can't help but wonder how we got here (by the way, if you think your guy is a great option, this thread probably isn't for you). And full disclosure: It could definitely just be me, and maybe I've just become too cynical over years.

Anyway, for those of you who agree with me that we've really sunk in the quality of our "leaders" and "candidates", why do you think that is? Right now, I can only come up with two ideas:

First, with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of "news" sources (ha ha), I strongly suspect that our REAL "Best & Brightest" know to stay the hell out of politics, since anyone who jumps in will be immediately and viciously attacked in real life, online, and in every other possible way. Their families will be scrutinized to an absurd degree, and they and their families' lives may never be the same again. So we end up with people who just exist only on their egos, everything else be damned.

Second, maybe it's just me/us. Maybe as we age, our cynicism increases and people with big names just impress us less. Maybe the quality of our options hasn't increased much, and my frustration is more about being worn down over time by all the BS than it is about the quality of these people.

Your thoughts?

I think we got to this situation because of the money in politics. Both sides are very, very corrupt. It isn't just presidential candidates. You have people in office for decades that siphon off money with great aplomb. Money buys races. I know I've felt my votes have had little value for many years. There is a reason 'dirty politicians' is just considered a fact. It hurts every time someone I vote for does the exact opposite he campaigns on.

The corruption and incompetence is the main reason why I don't think the big government model you prefer is an option. It would be like getting medical advice from a chimp.

 

[Mac1958]

it appears to be the foundation of the arguments and actions of the Left.

But if such graphs [as we discussed] superimpose race on given issues [or perhaps better – interpret given issues through the lens of race], how is that not imposing a racial narrative on whatever issue is protested in the manner I said?

The thing is -- if you’re going to cite this as a 'game' the ‘left’ played for years, and which led to the installation of a President you don’t support – it seems fair to ask that the ‘difference’ be clarified.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

No, I'm saying that it is. The issue of race is the constant, and IS imposed on virtually every other issue or news item whenever possible, no matter how much of a stretch it takes.

The example I provided was only one of many. Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation. But it backfired on them terribly. The Right's long-held and growing frustration over this strategy played a profound role in animating them to vote for Trump.

‘The issue of race is the constant, and IS imposed on virtually every other issue or news item whenever possible, no matter how much of a stretch it takes.’

So we agree then. And what you say here is offered as description, NOT prescription. Got it. At issue now is the rationale for doing so.

‘Imposing the racial narrative on virtually everything allows them to pull it out and wield it whenever needed, to put their target on the defensive and control the conversation.’

Some I’m sure do use racial narrative that way. Yet that use and the narrative alike are used to bury the broader issue of social class. Social class is the fundamental division of society. This, the ruling class must hide from view. Identity politics, including race, are injected into civic discourse to that end. For the ruling class, ‘race’ is a ‘safe’ is a safety valve to divert public anger down other ‘harmless’ paths. The energy spent, equilibrium is restored, and prying eyes are turned away from the socially malevolent function of the bourgeoisie.

Some on the right are frustrated [and angry]; that is not without justification. But the outcome of the 2016 election was hardly a result of misused/overused racial narrative. The same is true of JoeB131’s explanation of third-party voting and low voter turnout. Such lines are answers without explanations. Here, I’ll stop. But I’m going to continue responding in reply to JoeB131 post. There, I’m offering you and JoeB131 my explanation of why an election that ought to have been won by 50 points – was lost.

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

I don't know that it's always about class, within the specific context of race, but I'm assuming you're defining class as a socioeconomic construct.

There are times that those who have weaponized the race issue leverage class to push their larger racial agenda, so I think the chicken-or-the-egg question applies.

That's where we may disagree, at least in some cases. Sometimes the larger issue may be race, other times the larger issue may be class. The two can obviously be related, so they may essentially be interchangeable.