In germany we have a joke this goes like this: A millionaire, a worker and an immigrant sit at a table with 10 dollar. The millionaire takes 9 dollar and says to the worker: Watch out, the immigrant wants to take your dollar!

This is basically how racism is used as a tool to misdirect attention away from the underlying system. The Republicans still use that formula, while the democrats use a modified one, they tell the black man: Watch out, the white worker has taken your dollar.

Either side uses racism to deflect attention away from the system, neither party challenges the neoliberal system. The reality is, that neither the immigrant, nor the black, nor the white workers want an excessive share of wealth, the majority of wealth was already soaked up by the super rich, which leaves the rest fighting for scraps. To change the system these groups need to unite, not to divide into even more and more sub- and identity groups which see themself slighted by other identity groups.

I don't recall any instance where a Democrat rallied against white working people.

An error you keep repeating is that you try to both-side American politics, also happens in your post that preceded the one I just quoted. While it's true that Democrats have done only little things over the years, they at least attempted to do something. American voters are in a tough situation due to the two-party system, but a chance for improvement - no matter how small - is still undoubtedly the better option than a guarantee for things to get worse.

I feel like this type of hyper-emotional arguing leaves me not really sure what to say. It's all about how you feel or what you personally believe. We aren't dealing with a shared reality or any set of debatable facts. There is just a fanfiction about the progressives that you've made up and are now attempting to wield in an argument. 

What am I supposed to do with that?

Here's what I'll say: Compare actual policy proposals and tell me what side hates the poor.

Look at the "Big Beautiful Bill", for example. The poorest Americans (lowest decile) are set to lose roughly 2-4% of their household resources, while the richest Americans are set to see their household resources increase by 2-4%. Thats hundreds of thousands of dollars going into the pockets of the richest people in this country every year and what fraction of that loss is being paid for is coming from the pockets of the poorest Americans, who will go hungry or avoid seeking necessary healthcare as a result. This is one of the most regressive bills in decades.

Is that the policy of a party that is truly looking out for the poorest Americans? 

As long as you're still doing the whole "my side are the good guys" thing, nothing you say has anything to do with reality.  If you're a reliable voter then you won't need reality, you can just follow the sound of the pipes.

You also clearly didn't read my entire post or you're simply misrepresenting what I said to make it fit into your dichotomy--and I refuse.  If you don't want to see the flaws in the side you support then that's on your head.  I don't care if you do or don't.

As far as which party cares about the poor, are you fucking joking?  Neither one gives a damn.  Wake up.

I went to a poor rural school, in a poor county, in a poor state.  We didn't have computers until a local company donated their outdated units from storage, which were completely useless by that point.  Not only could they not run modern software but we only had around 12 of them.  I remember sharing one with an older student but the teacher stopped teaching because he said there was no purpose.  Meanwhile, the big focus for the Democrats at the time were inner city schools.  That is all they cared about.  Not disadvantaged students in general, no, just those who met certain criteria.  The part that I find most ironic is that my graduating class was around 50% black, but they were fucked, too, because they shared a school with lower income white kids.

I remember reading that some of those inner city schools that were getting so much attention and support actually had advanced computer and networking classes.  That must have made those rich progressive white people really pleased with themselves.

Do you know what actually changes for the vast majority of the poor and working class when either Democrats and Republicans are in office?  Nothing.  If it did then people wouldn't get fed up and switch back and forth every few years.

Here's what I'll say: look at the results.

The Gini-index is the measurement of distribution of wealth towards complete equality (0) or complete inequality (all wealth to one person, everyone else has nothing - 1 or 100 depending on the scale). So here is the development over time for the US:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

So, the Gini-index was slowly going down (more equal wealth distribution) until 1980. That is Ronald Reagan and his new neoliberalism. Actually, let's look at power distribution for the two parties over time, including not only presidency but house and senate as well:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

So Reagan's neoliberal politics had quite the effect and changed the distribution towards the rich. So far that aligns with your hypothesis and I would say back then you were right. But the thing is - with the change of power towards the democrats it didn't change. Bill Clinton mostly preserved the status quo Reagan and Bush had created. After that the effect of which party is in power has a negligable effect on wealth distribution. For instance you see a small decline in the Gini-index (meaning more equality) starting 2006 to 2010. That is the end of the George W. Bush era and the start of the Obama era. But the rise afterwards falls also into the Obama era. The biggest effect on the Gini in post-Reagan era we see with the pandemic. But 2022 the Gini index rises again - with Joe Biden in the White house.

So yeah, for now 30 years neither party does anything substantial for the working class. Not anything that has an actual effect. The people don't notice superficial good looking policies (or maybe even well intended ones), what the see is that their life is not improving. Take notice that the Gini index isn't about recession or economic growth. However much wealth the economy produces, the Gini index is measuring how this wealth is distributed amongst the populace. So to speak about the fairness of the system. And that is the point here - after Reagan who clearly and strongly moved the needle towards more unfairness politics just kept keeping the status quo, regardless of party in power. Working class people noticed that, that despite all their words the Democratic party did little to really change anything.

As long as you're still doing the whole "my side are the good guys" thing, nothing you say has anything to do with reality.  If you're a reliable voter then you won't need reality, you can just follow the sound of the pipes.

You also clearly didn't read my entire post or you're simply misrepresenting what I said to make it fit into your dichotomy--and I refuse.  If you don't want to see the flaws in the side you support then that's on your head.  I don't care if you do or don't.

As far as which party cares about the poor, are you fucking joking?  Neither one gives a damn.  Wake up.

I went to a poor rural school, in a poor county, in a poor state.  We didn't have computers until a local company donated their outdated units from storage, which were completely useless by that point.  Not only could they not run modern software but we only had around 12 of them.  I remember sharing one with an older student but the teacher stopped teaching because he said there was no purpose.  Meanwhile, the big focus for the Democrats at the time were inner city schools.  That is all they cared about.  Not disadvantaged students in general, no, just those who met certain criteria.  The part that I find most ironic is that my graduating class was around 50% black, but they were fucked, too, because they shared a school with lower income white kids.

I remember reading that some of those inner city schools that were getting so much attention and support actually had advanced computer and networking classes.  That must have made those rich progressive white people really pleased with themselves.

Do you know what actually changes for the vast majority of the poor and working class when either Democrats and Republicans are in office?  Nothing.  If it did then people wouldn't get fed up and switch back and forth every few years.

I think racism is not dead yet, because it is kept on life support by people who would benefit from it. Grifters telling white people for a hefty price how racist they are. And for black people who want to use the false victim narrative as a shield against criticism, work, accountability and reason (e.g. BLM)

I am on the internet a fair bit, often looking at contentious social and political topics, including race relations in different countries. I almost never see racism, apart from some idiot colledge kids, woke professors, protesters, professional victims and ideologically captured news outlets. I get that this is not nothing, but if you account for the mentally disturbed and for people who do not need to work or even produce results or proof to stay in their position, I would say the rest, that is the big silent majority, is quite well adjusted.
Additionally I suspect that for every comment on the internet that was actually racist, we get a bazillion talking about it, falling over themselves to signal their virtue, and a bazillion more misinterpreting jokes and memes (as mentioned in the op) as racist, to again show how good and anti-racist they are. ... Perhaps a whole lot of this is just plain projection.

And if MLK was for equity, he was on the completely wrong track. Equity is poison to meritocracy and productive society. He should have much rather thought that black people would not need a hand out, that, given how generational wealth actually works (and how few people are actually wealthy to begin with), black people would make it at an equal playing field, because they are no worse than white people.

Equality before the law for all people who were made equal.
Equity for all races beneath that, unable to compete.

As long as you're still doing the whole "my side are the good guys" thing, nothing you say has anything to do with reality.  If you're a reliable voter then you won't need reality, you can just follow the sound of the pipes.

You also clearly didn't read my entire post or you're simply misrepresenting what I said to make it fit into your dichotomy--and I refuse.  If you don't want to see the flaws in the side you support then that's on your head.  I don't care if you do or don't.

As far as which party cares about the poor, are you fucking joking?  Neither one gives a damn.  Wake up.

I went to a poor rural school, in a poor county, in a poor state.  We didn't have computers until a local company donated their outdated units from storage, which were completely useless by that point.  Not only could they not run modern software but we only had around 12 of them.  I remember sharing one with an older student but the teacher stopped teaching because he said there was no purpose.  Meanwhile, the big focus for the Democrats at the time were inner city schools.  That is all they cared about.  Not disadvantaged students in general, no, just those who met certain criteria.  The part that I find most ironic is that my graduating class was around 50% black, but they were fucked, too, because they shared a school with lower income white kids.

I remember reading that some of those inner city schools that were getting so much attention and support actually had advanced computer and networking classes.  That must have made those rich progressive white people really pleased with themselves.

Do you know what actually changes for the vast majority of the poor and working class when either Democrats and Republicans are in office?  Nothing.  If it did then people wouldn't get fed up and switch back and forth every few years.