|
>"The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to >study and develop Reparation proposals for African-Americans" > >Again, he was specifically asked about a cash payment, which >was the only part of the conversation that he answered no to >
> >Looking at that bill actually makes his answer more logical > >How can someone answer yes, if they don't know what they are >agreeing to... >
The reasoning makes logical sense, you're right. But I think I personally - and others too, it seems - read it as a bit of a cop-out though?
Like Cam said.. with nothing specific set in stone, it's really almost more of a question about values at this point. So from a strictly MORAL perspective, why would somebody (that's not racist) even speak against redressing Black Americans for what was systemically done to their lineages over hundreds of years?
Like, somebody could be supportive but nitpick on specifics.. I get that. It's similar to what happens in environmentalist and healthcare debates. But swerving the question and bringing up an entire other group with its own separate agenda is kind of wack. He actually did that, came right out and said no to any form of monetary reparations, and chuckled as Charlamagne pressed the issue. Tone deaf as hell.
You raise a good point though about how people rationalize supporting other candidates, especially if folks are willing to axe somebody over this specific issue. I can't really speak on others' motives, but if it was me I'd probably distinguish those who support from those who are neutral from those who speak against/dismiss and weigh accordingly from the first two groups.
All that said, I will not be a naturalized citizen by the time this election occurs and will lack eligibility to vote in a US election for a long time. My interest in election-related news and outcomes is based strictly on the direct impacts US tax, healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy have on my life lol
|