Would Dems support Whitey in a fight for a larger footprint in minority majority cities?

BrokeLoser

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2016
39,691
22,038
1,915
MEXIFORNIA
If Whitey launched a coalition in say Los Angeles.....you know, to fight for equality and all that good stuff could they count on Democrats having their back?
 
If Whitey launched a coalition in say Los Angeles.....you know, to fight for equality and all that good stuff could they count on Democrats having their back?

Hmm? What kind equality would we be fighting for? White equality? If so, that's never gonna happen. America has become a nation systemically racist against anyone who is not of African descent.
 
I have lived in Los Angeles since the 1940s.

Out of nearly 4,000,000 people, I think that the Caucasian percentage is at about 30% or so.

Young Caucasians have been gentrifying some neighborhoods. And in one Latino area, there was a bit of a dust-up, but the councilman for that district (a Latino gentleman) deplored any negative conduct by residents. He said something like: "We have to accept that neighborhoods change. So welcome our new residents in peace."

No, there is no reason for the Democrats to encourage more Caucasians. It is accepted that the future of Los Angeles (and the state of California) will be Latino. Already, our mayor is classified as both a Latino and a Jewish gentleman; our City Council (of 15) has many Latino members; our police chief is of Basque origin (and is officially classified as Latino), most of the public school students are Latino; and 51% of Los Angeles cops are Latino.

Mexico once owned California (which included a tiny town called Los Angeles) until the United States took it away in a war that a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln opposed.
 
Do Democrats feel that whites should always be forbidden from advancing their race and growing the footprint of the white race in a nation founded, built and funded by whites?
 

Forum List

Back
Top