I'll try saying this another way.

[jcmaine72]

Since my last post expressing this fundamentally Democratic idea and was nuked, I'll express it terms that will (hopefully) make the euphemistically inclined here less squeamish.

In order to prevent any future recurrence of 2016, or the positively horrific election result in the UK, which essentially saw Conservatives there wipe out any hope sanity will prevail there any time soon, we need more demographic diversity. A sizable percentage of the "legacy" electorate will never accept our ideas under any circumstances. Reaching out to them is a lost cause, as should be abundantly clear to anyone who has been paying attention since President Obama made history in 2008.

I'm sure there isn't a single person here who wouldn't sign up right now for the Democratic Party to enjoy the kind of dominance on a national level as it currently does in the great state of California. The secret to our parity's success in California is no secret at all. It is California's diversity that has enabled our party take almost sole possession of power there, while the Republican party, the party of anti-diversity and white supremacy, has been rendered all but extinct there.

In short, if we want California's success mirrored in the rest of the nation we must make the rest of America look like California. That is, promote policies by all means necessary that will exponentially increase the diversity of every remote corner of our nation. Then, and only then, will we have the America we all want.

Note to censors: Before voting to hide this post, please at least extend me the courtesy of a reply explaining to me how this post is at loggerheads with existing Democratic Party principles. Thank you.

[brush]

1. Agreed. Nothing wrong with your post.

[jcmaine72]

2. Thank you!

[FakeNoose]

3. Well stated - in any case, diversity is always good

[jcmaine72]

9. Thanks!

[Arthur_Frain]

4. Well, sad that I'm the first one to poop on your new post,

but from my perspective, (and quite a few people I know) the phrase

“Make the rest of America look like California”

Simply does not resonate. I know what you’re trying to say, but you wouldn’t sell me on it with this point.

[Hortensis]

5. The Democratic Party is extremely diverse in every possible way,

and considering that, amazingly and wonderfully aligned in our common goals. Every group but those conservative whites who are antipathetic to liberalism is represented in our party.

So obviously, you must be thinking of the Republican Party, and I have very bad news for you. It's not that you accidentally came to the wrong forum. It's this:

When faced with the reality that America's demographic progression meant they must integrate by embracing minority conservatives or accept loosing every national election, the Republican leaders chose a different direction entirely: To do away with democracy, eliminate government of, by and for the people, and replace it with RW authoritarianism.

That enormously dangerous external threat from the right is the biggest single reason why the many factions of Democratic Party are so united. (With the single exception of the small, blind, but very noisy, illiberal left faction who only care about defeating the Democrats, of course.) Nothing like a giant threat to cause sensible people to pull together. And we are sensible peoples.

And given the gravity of the situation, if you need to post again, we will of course be happy to explain what's happening again.

[cwydro]

22. I know; I don't get the OP preaching that the Democratic Party needs to "embrace diversity."

We already do.

[Hortensis]

36. I think he must have meant the Republicans and just

somehow took a left turn and ended up in the wrong place.

[cwydro]

37. Lol, I think you nailed it.

I never could figure out the grand plan. Oh well.

[marble falls]

6. I am against all forms of profiling and policy based on assumed group stereotyping ...

that includes group punishment for the sins of a minority of the group. Its bad when its done by bad-acters, its worse when we do it and use strained-to-breaking excuses to justify it.

Your last OP deserved hiding. It bothers me you didn't get it.

[jcmaine72]

8. Oh, I get it alright.

Stating a fact isn't "profiling". The Republican Party's white rural base does not want our nation to become more racially diverse. That's a fact. As long as the Democratic Party embraces diversity and change these people will never vote for our party, all other issues be damned. That too is a fact.

What I find especially interesting is that you, like them, seem to equate advocating for increased racial diversity in our nation as a punishment against them.

Yeah, I get it.

[marble falls]

10. No, you don't. We aren't them and acting like them is indefensible.

[jcmaine72]

11. Advocating for increased racial diversity is "acting like them"?

[marble falls]

12. By removing another class of citizens with the same BoR including free association, free ...

movement, well yes, it is. I am against policy based on racial policies to move or remove any class in society.

The ironic part is that a direct result of your policy would be creating areas that are even more homogeneous and even less diverse.

It borders on eugenics.

[jcmaine72]

13. Who said anything about removing them?

That's an outrageous lie. Please show me where I advocated removing anyone? What I am advocating is that we continue to promote and nurture the increased the diversity our nation, which is assuredly something every single Democratic candidate supports. As I wrote earlier, you, like "them", seem to equate increased diversity with removing them. That's genuinely sad.

They call it the "Great Re(blank)ment" (I wouldn't want a second hide for using that term). The fact that they regard it as such says it all. They could accept these inevitable changes and celebrate our nation's increased diversity, but they equate increasing diversity with genocide....as you're doing as well apparently. (unless I misunderstood what you wrote).

Yep. I get it.

[marble falls]

14. Someones getting moved over your plan. Either way its going to be forced over a policy based ...

on race, nationality, culture, politics etc. all Constitutionally protected classes.

I honestly don't think you've really thought this all out.

I wonder if you've figured out the mathematics out yet, who's going where and what the criteria is for any particular destination for any particular segment of the population. What happens if I don't want to live in Alabama any more than I'd want to live in California? Won't this make NYC (for example) less diverse by move "diverse" population so as to bring up the diversity of of every podunk town in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota (which is now considering a bill to ban any further settlement of refugees), South Dakota. Texas etc.

After all, its those undiverse states that elected Trump, the Tea Party, Libertarians, Republicans - not the diverse California or NYC.

Please: quit while your ahead.

[jcmaine72]

15. Immigrants & refugees come here willingly, don't they?

You might find this hard to believe, but the federal government has had a program in place to resettle refugees in small towns all over America since the 1990s. As far as I know, no citizens in these areas have been forced to move out or "replaced" by the presence of these new arrivals. You might want to do some research yourself before accusing others of wanting to remove existing populations and promoting ideas that "border on eugenics" (Promoting diversity borders on eugenics?...Wow!).

You seem to hold very extreme views on this topic that are not at all in step with the current spirit of our party vis-à-vis immigration and diversity. I base this solely on what you have written in this thread and the blatantly & provably false things you have attributed to me.

[marble falls]

16. Counting your chickens before they hatch. How many immigrants will it take to diversify a nation ...

of almost 330,000,000 million people who are more than 80% white, 40% of who identify as Republicans?

My view is Constitutional and certainly within the beliefs of this thread and most of society. That's hardly extreme. My arguments are aligned with the Bill of Rights, with anyone living exactly where-ever they want, that they aren't forced to or from anywhere based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, politics, sex, age, gender ...

You're the extremist here, pal.

[jcmaine72]

17. " My view is Constitutional and certainly within the beliefs of this thread and most of society."

The hell it is.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe diversity makes a society stronger or weaker?

[marble falls]

19. So show how it isn't? Count the comments right here on your own thread. 3/4 of them tell ...

you how wrong you are. Show me how the right to free association and the right to free movement are not specifically covered by the Constitution.

"Freedom of Association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights. "



"Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country,[1] and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works.[1][2]

Such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous states, and in documents reflecting norms of international law. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[3]
and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.[4]

Some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries.[5][6] The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may even vary within the territory of a single country.[1] Such restrictions are generally based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement.[7]"


Taken from Wikipedia.

Moving populations for political or cultural motives is Stalinist.

[jcmaine72]

20. You haven't read a word I've written, have you?

Your post was not at all responsive to what I have actually written, but rather you still keep repeating the same lies about me advocating for forced population movements and human rights violations. Of course, I never once stated support for any of the foregoing, making your post blatantly (and deliberately) dishonest. I merely advocated for increased racial diversity. YOU attributed all the rest.

I sincerely hope that what you have written registers with other people here. You have repeatedly likened racial diversity with forced population movements and replacement, along with strictures on freedom of association. In particular, I find it interesting that you should raise the latter issue, because "Freedom of Association" is precisely how advocates of Jim Crow used to frame their arguments against its abolition.

"Moving populations for political or cultural motives is Stalinist". AGAIN, I never said SHIT about forcibly moving anyone, just a desire for increasing our nation's racial diversity. You seem insistent on indulging that fantasy. I guess you need to believe that for some reason.

However, I guess what you wrote answers the question I asked you earlier that you didn't deign to answer, which is whether you thought diversity was a strength or weakness. According to what you have clearly and conspicuously written here, you see diversity as "Stalinist". Nice.

[marble falls]

32. Oh but I have. You propose to do the opposite of what you condem the RW for: moving away from ...

diverse neighborhoods. Cite some sort of evidence to support that "fact".

You want populations moved to create "more diversity".

I showed you where the Constitution stands on that. O offered citation from a variety of sources through Wikipedia where what I am telliing you is the truth on two levels.

1. That your program is unconstitutional on itself.
2. Its a dark mind that figures just because the right RW does anything wrong that we are given any right to do the same wrong under the false pretension that its morally or ethically right.

Simply, its wrong when they do it and its wrong when we do it, too.

[cwydro]

34. I don't think we'll be hearing from him again.

At least not here.

[marble falls]

38. He just doesn't get it, almost in a rusbot sort of way.

[cwydro]

40. Yeah, noticed that.

[stillcool]

7. bloom where you're planted...

I think it's time that people paid more attention to state and local politics. Washington is effed up beyond belief, but if we have strong state governments we'll be in a better position to weather the coming storms.

[marlakay]

18. The last time a republican was in charge of Cali

Arnold the state went under big time and everyone saw it and its been going further and further to the left since.

[cwydro]

21. How do you plan to make the rest of the country "more like California?

What do you have in mind? Busing? Forced moves?

Not getting this idea.

[cwydro]

24. I said absolutely nothing about "death marches." Wow.

So you advocate telling new immigrants what state would be best for them to live, is that right? What if they have relatives in CA or NM, and they want to move there?

Would you advocate telling them, um nope, sorry, gotta lovely little abode for you here in Iowa, Alabama, Kansas, etc.?

How does this “resettlement” work? That word carries a LOT of baggage.

[jcmaine72]

25. Would you rather ghettoize new arrivals in a few big cities?

The Somalis in Minnesota and Maine are a prime example of new arrivals finding homes in areas not traditionally immigrant havens.

And the word "resettlement" in this context means exactly how it's defined in the dictionary, and, BTW, how our own government uses that term.

Office of Refugee Resettlement:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/the-us-refugee-resettlement-program-an-overview

Resettlement just means....resettlement. No secret meetings at Wannsee. No gas vans. No death squads or "showers". Just resettlement.

[cwydro]

26. Yes, our government used that word with the Native Americans too.

Not sure where you’re getting all this “death” stuff. Creepy.

So you do advocate telling new arrivals where they should live. Interesting.

What if a Somali wants to move to a warmer climate? Would that be allowed under your “resettlement” plan?

[jcmaine72]

27. Is this 1876?

Check out that website I linked you to. Do you honestly believe new immigrants and refugees are being placed on reservations?

I absolutely believe in freedom of movement. That said, where is it written that new arrivals must always live in abject poverty and desperate squalor in a handful of east coast cities? Is that a rule, or something? One of the goals of the Refugee Resettlement Program (strongly supported by President Obama, BTW) was to avoid concentrating new arrivals in overcrowded, impoverished urban areas and spread them out a bit. The idea is to ease the demand for social services in areas already overburdened and help new arrivals assimilate and adjust faster. I think the Somalis of Minnesota are a great example of this.

You and Marble can try to affix as many nefarious motives to my arguments as you want, but these are positions supported by the majority of democrats, including former President Obama.

[cwydro]

28. I wasn't aware that new arrivals were living in east coast cities.

That’s news to me. So I guess you’re not a fan of all the Central Americans and Mexicans we have in the Carolinas? Some in cities, and many, many in rural areas.

Don’t they add to our diversity?

And go to Miami and show me the “abject poverty and desperate squalor” the Cuban refugees are living in.

[marble falls]

39. Bull shit. Barack Obama never ever advocated forced settlement or resettlement, ever.

[jcmaine72]

29. "Not sure where you're getting all this "death" stuff. Creepy."

Go read some of Marble's posts above. He used terms like "eugenics" and "Stalinist", and kept insisting that I was advocating for the forced movements of entire populations when all I was advocating was for was increased racial diversity. Sorry if I sound a bit defensive, bit what that person wrote was disgusting.

[cwydro]

31. I don't have anything to do with Marble, nor do I have any power over what he or she posts.

Why are you lumping me in with him or her? I don’t believe I’ll interact with you anymore since you seem unable to distinguish one poster from another. You attack ME because another poster DISAGREED with YOU. Not sure I understand that, but I’ve got an idea.

Jesus Christ dude, half the people in this thread are not on your side. You have a wonderful evening now.

I notice you didn’t answer my last question, but don’t bother. I can imagine it will be another attack against me for what another poster said to you.

[Beringia]

30. Shake it Cali

[bobGandolf]

33. I am opposed to a plan that involves manipulating populations to achieve a desired win.

I'm tired of Republican manipulations designed to get or stay in power, and I am not interested in mimicking their dishonest and underhanded practices.

The idea of a democracy is for the people who live in a country to decide about their governance. Moving other people in in order to influence the results is in violation of the spirit of our democracy.

[GitRDun]

35. Immigrants saved Guymon, Oklahoma

[link:https://oklahoman.com/article/1896947/illegal-immigrationbrchanges-transform-guymonbrpanhandle-town-has-seen-an-influx-of-hispanics-since-plant-opened-officials-there-deny-hiring-undocumented-aliens|

White people need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Immigration has fueled this country for centuries.

You don't get to lock the door because your scared they're not coming from Europe now.

Bigots are stupid.

End rant.