ESPN host Stephen A. Smith says that if every African-American voted Republican for one election, it would send a strong message to the GOP that their vote is important.
“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” Smith said Tuesday during an appearance at Vanderbilt University, according to audio published by Breitbart.com.
During the 2012 presidential election, an overwhelming 93 percent of black voters supported President Barack Obama, while just 6 percent voted for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
“Black folks in America are telling one party, 'We don’t give a damn about you,’” Smith said. “They’re telling the other party, ‘You’ve got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb, the other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest[s].”
Smith compared voting with “shopping around” to let store owners know they have to cater to you to win your business.
“We don’t do that with politics, and then we blame white America for our disenfranchisement," he said.
View photosESPN The Party - Arrivals
SCOTTSDALE, AZ - JANUARY 30: TV personality Stephen A. Smith attends ESPN the Party at WestWorld of …
The “First Take” commentator is known for being outspoken.
Earlier this month, Smith suggested that Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly was racist for trading away black players like LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin while keeping Riley Cooper, a white receiver who was fined by the team in 2013 for using the N-word at a Kenny Chesney concert.
“Chip Kelly makes decisions over the last couple of years that, dare I say, leave a few brothers feeling uncomfortable,” Smith said. “I think that's fair to say. I mean, we’re sitting here looking at some of the decisions that Chip Kelly makes, and I’m like, what is up? What’s up with that? I mean, it’s like you've got to be his kind of guy, you know? And I’m like, well, Riley Cooper’s your kind of guy?”
Last year, Smith was suspended by ESPN after he made controversial comments suggesting that Janay Palmer, the wife of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, could have done something to prevent the domestic violence incident that was caught on tape in an Atlantic City elevator.
Smith later apologized.
“I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career,” Smith said. “My words came across that it is somehow a woman’s fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I was trying to say.”
Smith is basically saying that the black community are blamed for disenfranchising themselves by faithfully always voting for Democrats.
The key part:
Black folks in America are telling one party, ‘We don’t give a damn about you.’ They’re telling the other party ‘You’ve got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb. The other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.
Essentailly, be the seller in the "seller's market" and make both parties work for your interests.
Alpharius wrote: Stephen A. Smith is a TV "columnist' - paid to express a controversial opinion in order to get people talking, etc, etc,
An ESPN columnist, not a political one. Different animals.
Alpharius wrote: So, while this is interesting, but what I really want to know is what does Dreadclaw69 think about this?
I typically do not post my thoughts on the subject in the opening post is to avoid constricting the discussion, or dissuading people from taking part because they think that an agenda is being pursued.
whembly wrote: Essentailly, be the seller in the "seller's market" and make both parties work for your interests.
I agree.
Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
whembly wrote: Essentailly, be the seller in the "seller's market" and make both parties work for your interests.
I agree.
Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
Well...
It reminds me of a quote in The Usual Suspects...
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
And thusly...
The greatest trick Democrats ever pulled, was convincing African Americans that the Democrat's racist past didn't happen.
The problem isn't which party is or isn't offering... the problem is exactly what Tannhauser42 summarized:
"...vote for who you CHOOSE to vote for, and not who you're told to vote for."
The greatest trick Democrats ever pulled, was convincing African Americans that the Democrat's racist past didn't happen.
And let's just ignore the inconvenient fact that the "racist past" in question happened before the major realignment where the democrats and republicans essentially switched places on the liberal-conservative scale.
The problem isn't which party is or isn't offering... the problem is exactly what Tannhauser42 summarized:
"...vote for who you CHOOSE to vote for, and not who you're told to vote for."
Which is ironic given that the OP can be accurately summed up as "vote for who I tell you to vote for because I said so".
Peregrine wrote: I don't know, ask them yourself. But they obviously see something worth voting for in the democrats.
So you believe that the Republicans aren't doing anything for them, but cannot tell me what the Democrats are doing for them. But you believe that Republicans offer nothing and that voting Republican "isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.", but clearly the same isn't true of the Democrats. And you have no knowledge of what each party offers. Interesting way to reach a conclusion.
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
The quick stuff that comes to mind:
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
Marched with them in Selma. They Didn't try to disenfranchise a large portion of them with passing voting laws designed to keep them from voting. Put an affrican american on the ballot to become president twice. Passed the affordable care act. just off the top of my head.
If the republicans want their votes, maybe they should do something to reach out to them in a meaningful way. If they keep being the "bigots as usual" party, they're not going to get votes of the "minorities"
yes the democrats had their share of racists in the past, but that was in the past and getting further and further in the past.
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
Marched with them in Selma. They Didn't try to disenfranchise a large portion of them with passing voting laws designed to keep them from voting. Put an affrican american on the ballot to become president twice. Passed the affordable care act. just off the top of my head.
If the republicans want their votes, maybe they should do something to reach out to them in a meaningful way. If they keep being the "bigots as usual" party, they're not going to get votes of the "minorities"
yes the democrats had their share of racists in the past, but that was in the past and getting further and further in the past.
Well, there was that Lincoln guy, he was a Republican. Of course he didn't pass the Affordable Care Act so I can see how he could be easily overlooked.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
sirlynchmob wrote: If the republicans want their votes, maybe they should do something to reach out to them in a meaningful way. If they keep being the "bigots as usual" party, they're not going to get votes of the "minorities"
And if you want to keep trotting out meaningless stereotypes and caricatures then you are not going to get meaningful discussion
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
Marched with them in Selma. They Didn't try to disenfranchise a large portion of them with passing voting laws designed to keep them from voting. Put an affrican american on the ballot to become president twice. Passed the affordable care act. just off the top of my head.
If the republicans want their votes, maybe they should do something to reach out to them in a meaningful way. If they keep being the "bigots as usual" party, they're not going to get votes of the "minorities"
yes the democrats had their share of racists in the past, but that was in the past and getting further and further in the past.
Well, there was that Lincoln guy, he was a Republican. Of course he didn't pass the Affordable Care Act so I can see how he could be easily overlooked.
It's sad really that you had to go back 200 years to find something republicans did for the African-americans. so in 200 years the republicans have done nothing to earn their votes. Ya sounds like they're worth voting for.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
It doesn't help that the GOP as a whole has a recent history of demonizing African-Americans, which continues somewhat to this day. "Thug" and "Inner City Youth" are still code words often used.
Prestor Jon wrote: Well, there was that Lincoln guy, he was a Republican. Of course he didn't pass the Affordable Care Act so I can see how he could be easily overlooked.
It's almost like I said something about this already. Oh wait, I did:
And let's just ignore the inconvenient fact that the "racist past" in question happened before the major realignment where the democrats and republicans essentially switched places on the liberal-conservative scale.
- Pro-Union politics: opposed unions and supported "right to work" laws which essentially remove the ability to negotiate collectively.
- Anti-discrimination politics: opposed them as "government interference in the free market and/or freedom of beliefs".
- Pro-gun control: opposed it in every form.
- Criminal Justice Reform: more prisons, harsher sentences.
- Public Education Policies: attempted to dismantle the public education system entirely and replace it with private schools.
- Social Safety-nets: attempted to remove them entirely, except for wealthy CEOs and middle-class-or-higher old people that reliably vote republican.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
It doesn't help that the GOP as a whole has a recent history of demonizing African-Americans, which continues somewhat to this day. "Thug" and "Inner City Youth" are still code words often used.
Codes words... I hate that term so much. If someone says "thug" and your first thought jumps to black youths, it's not a frikken code word. A, either the problem is yourself, or B, there is an actual problem there that needs to be addressed.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Codes words... I hate that term so much. If someone says "thug" and your first thought jumps to black youths, it's not a frikken code word. A, either the problem is yourself, or B, there is an actual problem there that needs to be addressed.
C, all of the above.
Maybe that's how republicans can reach out. It's well past time america had that conversation and addressed it.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Not to mention, it's "champion" Lyndon Johnson, only pushed it for his own political expediency. He had spent the 20 years previously opposing every attempt at civil rights legislation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you believe that the Republicans aren't doing anything for them, but cannot tell me what the Democrats are doing for them. But you believe that Republicans offer nothing and that voting Republican "isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.", but clearly the same isn't true of the Democrats. And you have no knowledge of what each party offers. Interesting way to reach a conclusion.
Sigh. I'm addressing the point proposed in the OP, which is based on the premise that the republican party isn't doing anything for black people. The whole point of the article is that black people are getting nothing from republicans, but they should vote republican anyway as some kind of bizarre negotiating strategy.
Prestor Jon wrote: A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Seriously, what part of "ideological realignment" is so hard to understand? Republicans voted for civil rights back when republicans were the "liberal" party. And then the parties essentially swapped alignments and the republican party since that point has opposed similar laws just like the old conservative democrats.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you believe that the Republicans aren't doing anything for them, but cannot tell me what the Democrats are doing for them. But you believe that Republicans offer nothing and that voting Republican "isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.", but clearly the same isn't true of the Democrats. And you have no knowledge of what each party offers. Interesting way to reach a conclusion.
Sigh. I'm addressing the point proposed in the OP, which is based on the premise that the republican party isn't doing anything for black people. The whole point of the article is that black people are getting nothing from republicans, but they should vote republican anyway as some kind of bizarre negotiating strategy.
Peregrine... I do want to say that it *is* a bad strategy.
djones520 wrote: Codes words... I hate that term so much. If someone says "thug" and your first thought jumps to black youths, it's not a frikken code word. A, either the problem is yourself, or B, there is an actual problem there that needs to be addressed.
Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that when a lot of people say "thug" they're deliberately intending to refer to the "dangerous black guy" stereotype. It's a code word because it's nothing more than a way to say racist things to your racist supporters without openly crossing the line and alienating even the moderates.
Prestor Jon wrote: A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Seriously, what part of "ideological realignment" is so hard to understand? Republicans voted for civil rights back when republicans were the "liberal" party. And then the parties essentially swapped alignments and the republican party since that point has opposed similar laws just like the old conservative democrats.
You do know that in the political science field... that's hotly contested.
Jihadin wrote: You make it sound like all Republicans are white only.
Just 87% of them, that's pretty white considering the demographics across america.
In surveys conducted in 2012, nearly nine-in-ten (87%) Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters are white, while just 11% are minorities. In contrast, 61% of Democrats are white, while nearly four-in-ten are African American (21%), Hispanic (10%) or another race (7%).
d-usa wrote: A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
So Republicans have done nothing to advance civil rights? Not a single Republican?
Maybe it's my ethnocentricity showing but the platform you outlined for the Republicans doesn't seem to target based on race. As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum Caucasians are the majority of welfare recipients, surely it is they who would be affected the most - especially in Southern Red States. Stricter sentencing will affect everyone, as it is not targeted at crimes where Race X is disproportionately represented. Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm. In fact if you mean possibly relaxing the rules on felons owning guns then surely that means that African Americans, who we are told are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, would have their Constitutional rights restored.
whembly wrote: You do know that in the political science field... that's hotly contested.
Only because of a desire to claim credit for past accomplishments by people with the same name as the current party and to blame past offenses on people with the other name. If you remove that kind of ideological bias it's very easy to look at the parties of that era and see that their voting trends were not the same as the modern parties.
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation.
- Anti-discrimination politics:
- Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence
- Criminal Justice Reform
- Public Education Policies
- Social Safety-nets
So what have Republicans done in this area? Have advances in these areas been done solely by the Democrats? I'm genuinely curious are my knowledge of this part of US history and culture is still developing
A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
It doesn't help that the GOP as a whole has a recent history of demonizing African-Americans, which continues somewhat to this day. "Thug" and "Inner City Youth" are still code words often used.
There came a point where democrats began to show some favor towards civil rights and more equality in general. Racists wanting basically anything but that were more than willing to back anyone or anything that resisted these kind of changes regardless of their stances on other issues or previous alliances. The republicans party saw this as an opportunity and threw in with that lot, and their conservative momentum continues to this day.
In at least some sense the republican party as it exists in it's modern form came about as reaction opposing the idea that black people are deserve rights. That's not really the best way to get off on the right food with them.
It was an odd inversion, as it was just the opposite in years past. So go the winds of politics I suppose. Perhaps we'll see things change again.
Prestor Jon wrote: A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Seriously, what part of "ideological realignment" is so hard to understand? Republicans voted for civil rights back when republicans were the "liberal" party. And then the parties essentially swapped alignments and the republican party since that point has opposed similar laws just like the old conservative democrats.
So Republicans get no credit for passing the Civil Rights Act but Democrats suffer no penalty for the Dixiecrats and having a Klansman in the Senate as recently as 2010?
My post was mainly in response to the prior post that claimed blacks vote Democrat in part because Democrats marched with MLK in Selma which doesn't really make sense because Republicans were more instrumental in actually passing the bill.
When the Republicans actually adhere to conservative principles and push for greater freedom and less govt restriction in our personal lives it helps everybody, black people too.
Why anybody would swear allegiance to any political party is beyond me.
Prestor Jon wrote: A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Seriously, what part of "ideological realignment" is so hard to understand? Republicans voted for civil rights back when republicans were the "liberal" party. And then the parties essentially swapped alignments and the republican party since that point has opposed similar laws just like the old conservative democrats.
It should also be noted that the democrats that did oppose the act were all from southern states where racism was the politics of the day.
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. I'm addressing the point proposed in the OP, which is based on the premise that the republican party isn't doing anything for black people. The whole point of the article is that black people are getting nothing from republicans, but they should vote republican anyway as some kind of bizarre negotiating strategy.
A premise that you supported. I asked you for your reasons for supporting that premise. You just dismissed my question and told me to ask myself.
Perhaps it makes little sense to you. But if the Democrats are taking the community for granted then losing their support, or a large part of it, may make them re-evaluate their priorities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Only because of a desire to claim credit for past accomplishments by people with the same name as the current party and to blame past offenses on people with the other name. If you remove that kind of ideological bias it's very easy to look at the parties of that era and see that their voting trends were not the same as the modern parties.
d-usa wrote: It should also be noted that the democrats that did oppose the act were all from southern states where racism was the politics of the day.
Then why the claim that Republicans did little in this area at the time? Surely it is, as you both point out, a matter dependent on geography and culture more than political party
Prestor Jon wrote: A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Multiple Democrat senators launched filibusters to try to stop the passage of the bill, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was known to have been a member of the KKK. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama who was the most famous and vocal proponent of segragation was a Democrat. If it was for Republicans the Civial Rights Act doesn't pass.
Seriously, what part of "ideological realignment" is so hard to understand? Republicans voted for civil rights back when republicans were the "liberal" party. And then the parties essentially swapped alignments and the republican party since that point has opposed similar laws just like the old conservative democrats.
It should also be noted that the democrats that did oppose the act were all from southern states where racism was the politics of the day.
It should also be noted that urban areas with large black populations have been under consistent Democrat control for decades. If Democrats really care about the plight of black Americans why aren't blacks doing better in places like Chicago and Detroit? In every city where there's a black community struggling with high unemployment, violence, poverty etc. theres decades of Democrat governance.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
So Republicans have done nothing to advance civil rights? Not a single Republican?
Maybe it's my ethnocentricity showing but the platform you outlined for the Republicans doesn't seem to target based on race. As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum Caucasians are the majority of welfare recipients, surely it is they who would be affected the most - especially in Southern Red States. Stricter sentencing will affect everyone, as it is not targeted at crimes where Race X is disproportionately represented. Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm. In fact if you mean possibly relaxing the rules on felons owning guns then surely that means that African Americans, who we are told are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, would have their Constitutional rights restored.
Care to name any? I guess you couldn't think of any either as you didn't name any. And before you go digging back some 100+ years, let's keep it recent. say 2008 to present.
And the whole criminal system is very biased against blacks. for the same crime from harshest sentencing to least it goes:
Black male
White male
Black female
White female
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum Caucasians are the majority of welfare recipients, surely it is they who would be affected the most - especially in Southern Red States.
And that's misleading because white people are a majority of the population as a whole. A quick google search says that black people make up ~12.5% of the population but 39.8% of the people receiving welfare. That's a huge problem.
Stricter sentencing will affect everyone, as it is not targeted at crimes where Race X is disproportionately represented.
Except it doesn't work that way in reality because stricter sentencing doesn't apply to everyone. Slightly different crimes can have significantly different sentences (for example drug laws punish "black" drugs much more than "white" drugs with similar harm levels), ability to afford good lawyers and negotiate plea bargains makes a big difference, etc. Meanwhile guess which party it was that repealed the NC Racial Justice Act (which attempted to deal with racial bias in death sentences)?
(Hint: it wasn't the democrats.)
Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm.
No, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if you live in a high-crime area (an issue that disproportionately affects black people) you're more likely to desire gun control as a solution to that crime.
Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm.
No, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if you live in a high-crime area (an issue that disproportionately affects black people) you're more likely to desire gun control as a solution to that crime.
You seriously believe gun control cuts down crime? The high crime urban areas suffering the violence have the strictest gun control laws already. How to you explain urban areas in states with less gun control having less violence?
Prestor Jon wrote: You seriously believe gun control cuts down crime? The high crime urban areas suffering the violence have the strictest gun control laws already. How to you explain urban areas in states with less gun control having less violence?
No, I said that people who want gun control believe that. Whether or not you disagree with them about gun control being a good idea it's a reason for them to vote for the party that promises to give them gun control.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the opposite honestly. Republicans are usually anti-Union, want less regulations with Guns, stricter sentencing for all offenders, elimination of welfare, education reform that will result in funds being moved away from needed areas.
So Republicans have done nothing to advance civil rights? Not a single Republican?
They very well may have, but if we look to generalize the brands as a whole this is what we get.
Maybe it's my ethnocentricity showing but the platform you outlined for the Republicans doesn't seem to target based on race.
Something doesn't have to be based on race to affect one race more than another, and the motivation behind them don't have to be based on race either.
Voting laws is one of those issues. Pretty much every reform pushed by Republicans will affect African-Americans more than any other group, but you won't hear me claim that it is a policy driven by racism. It's not that Republicans don't want those groups to vote because they are black, they don't want them to vote because they vote Democrats. If more African-Americans were to vote Republicans they would be happy to make it easier for them to cast their votes.
As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum Caucasians are the majority of welfare recipients, surely it is they who would be affected the most - especially in Southern Red States.
True, and this is often something that liberals will try to point out. But the way it is often sold to the voting public is that African-Americans are the major recipient of this, using those favorite code-words as "inner city" welfare recipients.
Stricter sentencing will affect everyone, as it is not targeted at crimes where Race X is disproportionately represented.
This may be one of those areas where you might not be aware of what has happened. There are plenty of laws that have a disproportionate affect on one race over another. Cocaine is an example that is often given. Crack Cocaine had one set of sentencing guidelines and powder Cocaine had a different set. One of those sets of sentencing guidelines was a lot harsher than another, and I'm going to let you guess which group used the form of Cocaine that received harsher punishments.
Then you have sentencing differences between white-collar crimes and blue-collar crimes, unequal enforcement of the laws, etc etc.
Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm.
Gun control is really not based on race. It's just that a population that looks at dead bodies laying in the street on a regular basis is more likely to be pro-gun-control than a population that isn't listening to gun shots every night.
I'm not claiming that gun control would fix this problem, just that excessive violence in black neighborhoods (for whatever reason) can result in a group that wants more gun laws.
In fact if you mean possibly relaxing the rules on felons owning guns then surely that means that African Americans, who we are told are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, would have their Constitutional rights restored.
I am pro-restoring constitutional rights once a sentence is fully served (voting, gun ownership, etc).
Less regulation on firearms is, at first glance, a race neutral proposition as race is not a qualifying factor in the lawful possession of a firearm.
No, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if you live in a high-crime area (an issue that disproportionately affects black people) you're more likely to desire gun control as a solution to that crime.
You seriously believe gun control cuts down crime? The high crime urban areas suffering the violence have the strictest gun control laws already. How to you explain urban areas in states with less gun control having less violence?
It doesn't matter what he believes. It matters what the people affected by it believe.
Peregrine wrote: And that's misleading because white people are a majority of the population as a whole. A quick google search says that black people make up ~12.5% of the population but 39.8% of the people receiving welfare. That's a huge problem.
But there are more Caucasians total who are receiving welfare. Again any attempt to "eliminate welfare" is acting against the Republican's voter base
Peregrine wrote: Except it doesn't work that way in reality because stricter sentencing doesn't apply to everyone. Slightly different crimes can have significantly different sentences (for example drug laws punish "black" drugs much more than "white" drugs with similar harm levels), ability to afford good lawyers and negotiate plea bargains makes a big difference, etc. Meanwhile guess which party it was that repealed the NC Racial Justice Act (which attempted to deal with racial bias in death sentences)?
(Hint: it wasn't the democrats.)
So a law is passed to ensure that penalties across the board are increased. So no one type of crime is having penalties increased while others are not. But you're trying to claim that this affects one race more than others.
Peregrine wrote: No, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if you live in a high-crime area (an issue that disproportionately affects black people) you're more likely to desire gun control as a solution to that crime.
And increased gun control has not affected crime in a positive manner.
Peregrine wrote: Except, like everyone, they are making both parties work for their interests. If the republican party wants to get those votes then they need to offer something in return, and if they make a good enough offer then people will switch parties. But instead the republican party has chosen to offer nothing and pursue votes from other groups. What the OP is suggesting is that black people vote republican despite the republican party doing nothing to earn their votes. That isn't "making republicans work for your interests", it's rewarding current republican ideology with free votes.
So what have the Democrats done to earn their votes?
The quick stuff that comes to mind:
- Pro-Union politics: fighting for unions and opposing anti-union legislation. - Anti-discrimination politics: - Pro-gun control: despite your personal viewpoints on the legality and/or effectiveness of this issue it is an important issue for people living in areas of violence - Criminal Justice Reform - Public Education Policies - Social Safety-nets
DOn't forget pro-illegal immigration pro-anti school choice pro-higher taxes pro-gun control. Historically gun control was put in to control former slaves.
To be fair Republicans seem to be for pro-illegal immigration pro school choice, anti school funding pro private nanny state pro-higher spending pro-higher fees* cough taxescough
The Wiener Dog Party is for *pro snacks! *pro walks *pro belly rubs *pro sofas! *anti cats BOOO!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But there are more Caucasians total who are receiving welfare. Again any attempt to "eliminate welfare" is acting against the Republican's voter base
Only if you assume that all white people vote republican, or at least that the lost votes from poor white people (who depend on welfare) are greater than the gained votes from wealthier people who oppose welfare for ideological reasons. And then you have to consider the "we hate the same people Jesus hates" aspect of the republican party. Why do you think so many "tax cuts for the wealthy" republicans always make a big public show of how much they hate gay marriage/abortion/etc, issues that don't have much to do with their primary goal of making themselves richer?
So a law is passed to ensure that penalties across the board are increased. So no one type of crime is having penalties increased while others are not. But you're trying to claim that this affects one race more than others.
Except in practice it never works like that. "Tough on crime" laws are never imposed equally for everyone, and that inequality often lines up very closely with race.
And increased gun control has not affected crime in a positive manner.
And, again, that's not the point. People in high-crime areas often want more gun control, so it's pretty obvious why they would support the party that at least claims to want more gun control. Whether or not gun control works is irrelevant here since we're talking about who gun control supporters want to vote for.
djones520 wrote: Codes words... I hate that term so much. If someone says "thug" and your first thought jumps to black youths, it's not a frikken code word. A, either the problem is yourself, or B, there is an actual problem there that needs to be addressed.
Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that when a lot of people say "thug" they're deliberately intending to refer to the "dangerous black guy" stereotype. It's a code word because it's nothing more than a way to say racist things to your racist supporters without openly crossing the line and alienating even the moderates.
I was being called a thug before being a thug was cool.
d-usa wrote: Something doesn't have to be based on race to affect one race more than another, and the motivation behind them don't have to be based on race either.
Voting laws is one of those issues. Pretty much every reform pushed by Republicans will affect African-Americans more than any other group, but you won't hear me claim that it is a policy driven by racism. It's not that Republicans don't want those groups to vote because they are black, they don't want them to vote because they vote Democrats. If more African-Americans were to vote Republicans they would be happy to make it easier for them to cast their votes.
This sadly seems like something that both parties are adept at.
So could this fact explain other areas of Republican policy more than race?
d-usa wrote: This may be one of those areas where you might not be aware of what has happened. There are plenty of laws that have a disproportionate affect on one race over another. Cocaine is an example that is often given. Crack Cocaine had one set of sentencing guidelines and powder Cocaine had a different set. One of those sets of sentencing guidelines was a lot harsher than another, and I'm going to let you guess which group used the form of Cocaine that received harsher punishments.
Then you have sentencing differences between white-collar crimes and blue-collar crimes, unequal enforcement of the laws, etc etc.
I'm not disputing that laws may have disproportionate effects. What I am having trouble reconciling is how a platform that increases all penalties across the board, and therefore cannot be said to target a race based on disproportionate effect, is seen as targeting one race more than others. This isn't a case of an increase in sentencing for crack while keeping the sentence for coke static. This is penalties for both increasing
d-usa wrote: Gun control is really not based on race. It's just that a population that looks at dead bodies laying in the street on a regular basis is more likely to be pro-gun-control than a population that isn't listening to gun shots every night.
I'm not claiming that gun control would fix this problem, just that excessive violence in black neighborhoods (for whatever reason) can result in a group that wants more gun laws.
There are better ways to tackle the issue than increased gun control. And I can see why sentencing for crimes that disproportionately affect these areas may be higher in an attempt to combat the social ills. That being said the war on drugs has not helped matters
d-usa wrote: I am pro-restoring constitutional rights once a sentence is fully served (voting, gun ownership, etc).
On this we agree. If someone is still a danger then they should not be at large in the general public and should be incarcerated. If someone is no longer a danger then their rights should be restored
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that when a lot of people say "thug" they're deliberately intending to refer to the "dangerous black guy" stereotype. It's a code word because it's nothing more than a way to say racist things to your racist supporters without openly crossing the line and alienating even the moderates.
So when you say "a lot" is there any evidence in this thread that is how it is meant? And what % of the usage of the word "thug" refers to "dangerous black guy"? I would imagine that to many the original meaning, i.e. that of a criminal, is still the common definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Only if you assume that all white people vote republican, or at least that the lost votes from poor white people (who depend on welfare) are greater than the gained votes from wealthier people who oppose welfare for ideological reasons. And then you have to consider the "we hate the same people Jesus hates" aspect of the republican party. Why do you think so many "tax cuts for the wealthy" republicans always make a big public show of how much they hate gay marriage/abortion/etc, issues that don't have much to do with their primary goal of making themselves richer?
Obama only got 39% of the white vote, mainly in Blue States. No assumption was made that "all white people vote Republican", nor was it necessary. However you cut it "eliminating welfare" affects more of the Republican base than the Democrat base. You cannot claim that this is a racial issue. The evidence does not support this claim.
Peregrine wrote: Except in practice it never works like that. "Tough on crime" laws are never imposed equally for everyone, and that inequality often lines up very closely with race.
So please explain how (hypothetically) the punishment for a sentence increases 5 years for all crimes will disproportionately affect a given race
Peregrine wrote: And, again, that's not the point. People in high-crime areas often want more gun control, so it's pretty obvious why they would support the party that at least claims to want more gun control. Whether or not gun control works is irrelevant here since we're talking about who gun control supporters want to vote for.
Except that the appetite for gun control is at a low
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What I am having trouble reconciling is how a platform that increases all penalties across the board, and therefore cannot be said to target a race based on disproportionate effect, is seen as targeting one race more than others.
The point we keep trying to explain to you is that this theoretical platform is just that: theoretical. In the real world penalties are never increased equally. Even if the sentences are equal on paper they aren't applied equally, and there's always an opportunity for things like plea bargains.
This isn't a case of an increase in sentencing for crack while keeping the sentence for coke static. This is penalties for both increasing
And why was the sentence for crack harsher? Because it was considered "black crime". If you increase both sentences equally you still have the problem of racial bias.
There are better ways to tackle the issue than increased gun control. And I can see why sentencing for crimes that disproportionately affect these areas may be higher in an attempt to combat the social ills. That being said the war on drugs has not helped matters
And, again, you're missing the point here. Nobody is claiming that gun control is the right solution, we're saying that if you believe that gun control is the right solution you are probably going to vote for the people who promise to give you more gun control.
So when you say "a lot" is there any evidence in this thread that is how it is meant? And what % of the usage of the word "thug" refers to "dangerous black guy"? I would imagine that to many the original meaning, i.e. that of a criminal, is still the common definition.
Yes, of course I have conclusive evidence of intent involving a word that is used to create plausible deniability. /sarcasm
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Obama only got 39% of the white vote, mainly in Blue States. No assumption was made that "all white people vote Republican", nor was it necessary. However you cut it "eliminating welfare" affects more of the Republican base than the Democrat base. You cannot claim that this is a racial issue. The evidence does not support this claim.
Sorry, but what? Do you understand how statistics work? Republicans might have 60% of the white vote as a whole, but the white vote as a whole doesn't matter. What matters is who poor white people who depend on welfare vote for. For example, if 90% of poor white people voted for Obama then the remaining 10% aren't a major element of the republican voters.
So please explain how (hypothetically) the punishment for a sentence increases 5 years for all crimes will disproportionately affect a given race
Because, again, that increase will not be applied equally. For example, if you're wealthier (something that is not equal by race) you can afford a better lawyer and negotiate a plea bargain where you accept the sentence for a lesser crime that didn't get the 5-year increase. Or maybe if the court is biased racially in your favor you can at least get a sentence on the low end of the range, better terms for getting out of prison early, etc.
And I don't really see how this is controversial. Ignore racial issues for a moment and consider how many wealthy celebrities get the same sentences as "normal" people who commit the same crimes, despite the sentencing laws theoretically applying equally to both.
Peregrine wrote: The point we keep trying to explain to you is that this theoretical platform is just that: theoretical. In the real world penalties are never increased equally. Even if the sentences are equal on paper they aren't applied equally, and there's always an opportunity for things like plea bargains.
So penalties increasing by the same level and not singling out a "black crime" is de facto disproportionate? A poor White crack dealer is just as screwed as a poor Black crack dealer
Peregrine wrote: And why was the sentence for crack harsher? Because it was considered "black crime". If you increase both sentences equally you still have the problem of racial bias.
You have evidence to support this claim that the sentence is higher because of race, and not it's social impacts?
Peregrine wrote: Yes, of course I have conclusive evidence of intent involving a word that is used to create plausible deniability. /sarcasm
So how did you reach the conclusion that "a lot of people say "thug" they're deliberately intending to refer to the "dangerous black guy" stereotype."?
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but what? Do you understand how statistics work? Republicans might have 60% of the white vote as a whole, but the white vote as a whole doesn't matter. What matters is who poor white people who depend on welfare vote for. For example, if 90% of poor white people voted for Obama then the remaining 10% aren't a major element of the republican voters.
So you have figures, statistics if you will, that support the notion that more poor whites supported Democrats than Republicans?
Peregrine wrote: Because, again, that increase will not be applied equally. For example, if you're wealthier (something that is not equal by race) you can afford a better lawyer and negotiate a plea bargain where you accept the sentence for a lesser crime that didn't get the 5-year increase. Or maybe if the court is biased racially in your favor you can at least get a sentence on the low end of the range, better terms for getting out of prison early, etc.
And I don't really see how this is controversial. Ignore racial issues for a moment and consider how many wealthy celebrities get the same sentences as "normal" people who commit the same crimes, despite the sentencing laws theoretically applying equally to both.
We're talking about wealth here. Not race. That is tied more closely to social status and Class. You're making my point for me.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So penalties increasing by the same level and not singling out a "black crime" is de facto disproportionate? A poor White crack dealer is just as screwed as a poor Black crack dealer
Except you keep ignoring the fact that there are more black crack dealers than white crack dealers, and similar drugs that have more white users/dealers get lighter sentences. Obviously it's not a perfect division between white and black criminals, but the intent is to punish "black crime" more than "white crime".
You have evidence to support this claim that the sentence is higher because of race, and not it's social impacts?
Obviously not, because few people are going to commit political suicide by openly admitting that they're supporting a racist law. But perhaps you could provide some examples of these significantly worse social impacts that you think justify a much harsher sentence?
So how did you reach the conclusion that "a lot of people say "thug" they're deliberately intending to refer to the "dangerous black guy" stereotype."?
Because I understand how language works and can look beyond the literal meaning of the words. It's like calling someone "gay" and then responding to criticism by saying that you just meant that they looked happy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you have figures, statistics if you will, that support the notion that more poor whites supported Democrats than Republicans?
You have this whole burden of proof thing backwards. You're the one claiming that welfare is a bigger issue for republican voters than for democrat voters, I'm just pointing out that the statistics you're trying to use in support of that claim are misleading at best.
We're talking about wealth here. Not race. That is tied more closely to social status and Class. You're making my point for me.
And guess what social status and class are often tied to.
Peregrine wrote: Except you keep ignoring the fact that there are more black crack dealers than white crack dealers, and similar drugs that have more white users/dealers get lighter sentences. Obviously it's not a perfect division between white and black criminals, but the intent is to punish "black crime" more than "white crime".
Just after this you posted a comment to say that you had no evidence of this;
Peregrine wrote: Obviously not, because few people are going to commit political suicide by openly admitting that they're supporting a racist law.
So if the people who passed these laws are supporting a racist law does that include the Democrats who voted for it?
Peregrine wrote: Because I understand how language works and can look beyond the literal meaning of the words. It's like calling someone "gay" and then responding to criticism by saying that you just meant that they looked happy.
Please do not be obtuse. You are making sweeping statements with almost nothing to support your claim
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: You have this whole burden of proof thing backwards. You're the one claiming that welfare is a bigger issue for republican voters than for democrat voters, I'm just pointing out that the statistics you're trying to use in support of that claim are misleading at best.
So I should not ask you to prove your claims?
Peregrine wrote: And guess what social status and class are often tied to.
djones520 wrote: It fits his worldview Dreadclaw. That is how he reaches it.
If the majority of crack users are black then any law that punishes crack at a higher level than powder automatically affects black people more. That's basic statistics and has nothing to do with worldviews.
I think people get defensive because they mistake "affects blacks" with "targets blacks".
The initial premise seems innately flawed. My understanding is that minorities tend to vote for the Democratic Party in elections, and there has been considerable concern regarding restrictions to the rights of said minorities, often (but not exclusively) tied to actions by the Republican Party.
Taking all of that support and throwing it at the GOP seems like it'd be tossing away what protection one has in the hopes that said (presumed) landslide might change some hearts and minds. And if they instead say "hey, thanks for the easy wins, suckers!" and do nothing, said citizens may have managed to set themselves back years or decades of progress.
It seems backwards. The citizenry shouldn't throw votes blindly at people in the hopes that maybe they change, if the politicians want that support they should make efforts to curry their favour.
It's the same silly mental exercise as every anti-gun advocate joining the NRA in the hopes of changing their lobbying efforts, as though the NRA wouldn't take those millions of dollars and simply keep doing what they're doing. Any swell of people large enough to even put a dent in such a groups policies would also require filling their coffers that much further to the brim.
Not to mention that many of the policies/topics in question disproportionately affect minorities.
It's a terrible idea at a glance, and only withers further under scrutiny.
Jihadin wrote: You make it sound like all Republicans are white only.
Just 87% of them, that's pretty white considering the demographics across america.
In surveys conducted in 2012, nearly nine-in-ten (87%) Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters are white, while just 11% are minorities. In contrast, 61% of Democrats are white, while nearly four-in-ten are African American (21%), Hispanic (10%) or another race (7%).
Jihadin wrote: You make it sound like all Republicans are white only.
Just 87% of them, that's pretty white considering the demographics across america.
In surveys conducted in 2012, nearly nine-in-ten (87%) Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters are white, while just 11% are minorities. In contrast, 61% of Democrats are white, while nearly four-in-ten are African American (21%), Hispanic (10%) or another race (7%).
Edit: I guess the forum won't accept the first link, if you wish to follow it, use your imagination. It goes into some of the racial attacks Condeleeza Rice received from the other side of the aisle.
The point I'm making in posting this is that some very vocal Democrats routinely try to treat black voters as if they belong to the Democrats...
Bulworth was, in many way, a pretty crappy movie. But there are moments of political commentary that are just brilliant.
"Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?" Bulworth replies, "Isn't that obvious? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!"
Democrats have given African Americans lip service for generations, and while people like to talk about 90%+ voting Democrat, most actually vote for no-one - the African American turnout is terrible. Faced between a party who's done nothing to help their economic and social issues, and a party that plays them as villains, most choose no-one, and the rest choose the lip service of the Democrats.
Thing is, ultimately making this an issue about how black people vote is missing the point. Arguing that community at large should vote one way or another for strategic reasons is just impractical. What's needed, basically, is for Republicans to finally give up on the Southern Strategy. That's a policy that paid dividends, but is facing an diminishing return on investment, as white working class voters become less relevant with each election. I mean, consider what happens when Republicans roll out a jobs plan aimed at urban centres. What would Democrats do?
The greatest trick Democrats ever pulled, was convincing African Americans that the Democrat's racist past didn't happen.
And Republicans were in power when the North fought the war, and burned half the South to the ground. Trying to make that an argument not to vote for the current iteration of the party is ridiculous. Organisations move on. People know this, and vote for the people currently running, not the ones who ran in the 60s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Well, there was that Lincoln guy, he was a Republican. Of course he didn't pass the Affordable Care Act so I can see how he could be easily overlooked.
Yes, it's highly unusual that so few people don't consider the party allegiance of people who've been dead for 150 years when deciding their vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: You make it sound like all Republicans are white only.
Have you ever looked at the break down of the Republican vote? It is massively white.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: Maybe that's how republicans can reach out. It's well past time america had that conversation and addressed it.
Forar wrote: and there has been considerable concern regarding restrictions to the rights of said minorities, often (but not exclusively) tied to actions by the Republican Party.
sebster wrote: I mean, consider what happens when Republicans roll out a jobs plan aimed at urban centres. What would Democrats do?
Could the republican party even do that without losing their vital funding (and possibly votes) from the "NO WELFARE" types? It's kind of like the situation with gay marriage: they're clearly on the losing end of the debate and it's costing them support from everyone but the bigots, but if they ever give up the "we hate all the people Jesus hates" strategy they risk losing a lot of votes without any guarantee that they'll get replacements fast enough to avoid a crippling defeat.
Oh, and here's a graph that shows the basic breakdown of how voting typically works in the US.
The first thing to realise is that voting typically follows income - the less you earn the more likely you'll vote Democrat and the more you earn the more likely you'll vote Republican. That's the yellow lines across the graph, showing income earners under 30k vote Democrat about 65% of the time, while those over 50k vote Republican more.
Against this is plotted the average of different ethnic groups - so African American voters earning an average of about 31k would be expected to vote Democrat 56 or 57% of the time, but instead they're up around 93%. Similarly, Asian Americans, averaging about 65k would be expected to be majority Republican voters, but they still go Democrat 71% of the time.
A similar distinction can be found in Southern Whites, who would be expected to vote Republican on account of the high average income, but instead vote about 85% Republican.
If people can't see the racial make up in voting patterns from that, then I don't know what more to say.
Peregrine wrote: Could the republican party even do that without losing their vital funding (and possibly votes) from the "NO WELFARE" types? It's kind of like the situation with gay marriage: they're clearly on the losing end of the debate and it's costing them support from everyone but the bigots, but if they ever give up the "we hate all the people Jesus hates" strategy they risk losing a lot of votes without any guarantee that they'll get replacements fast enough to avoid a crippling defeat.
That's been the debate inside the Republican party since they started seeing where the demographics were taking them. It really heated up post 2006 & 2008 when Republicans had their worst results. So far the issue has been won each time by people wanting to carry on, there's been a few 'reforms' about changing the way the Republicans say things, but no change to the substance.
On the specifics of a policy on urban jobs, I don't think welfare is the hurdle. Government policy is full of support and infrastructure spending to encourage government jobs in to one area or another. The hurdle is more that such programs typically go to more politically powerful areas - Republicans send that money to farming and regional areas, Democrats send it to unionised industry. The challenge is to get existing special interests to give up some of their benefits to try and chase a new special interest - no easy thing at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: So what you're saying is that a "southern white" is more likely to vote Democrat than a Black American would vote Republican?
Do you honestly, truly believe that's the lesson to be drawn from what I posted?
Do you honestly, truly believe that's the lesson to be drawn from what I posted?
Of course not.
I do, however, think singling out only "southern white" and "midwest white" is stupid and irresponsible.
Where's "California White?" Or how about "Hispanic White?"
Regardless, my statement is actually supported by that graph. Of all demographics, Black Americans are most likely to vote along a singular party line.
I do, however, think singling out only "southern white" and "midwest white" is stupid and irresponsible.
Where's "California White?" Or how about "Hispanic White?"
Regardless, my statement is actually supported by that graph. Of all demographics, Black Americans are most likely to vote along a singular party line.
Of course they are. That's the thing everyone knew before we came in to this thread. What's interesting is why, and how that lines up against other voting groups.
And that's why the graph doesn't include absolutely every single other regional and ethnic group you can think of - because it's about providing a context for African American voting tendencies, to show how other groups vote with similar variation to what you'd expect given their income. The answer, ultimately, is that with African Americans there's a double whammy - they vary from average income about as much as Southern Whites and Asian Americans, it's just that given they're particularly low income that magnifies the tendency to already vote Democrat.
Incidentally, I will never until the day I die understand the weirdness of the concept of 'Hispanic' in the US.
A guy can be a native Spanish speaker, second generation migrant, and will be recorded on studies as White/Hispanic or sometimes just as White. An African American guy can have American ancestry going back to the slave ships, speak only English, and he'll be African American.
It blows my mind that the first, which can be massively different culturally, just gets absorbed in to white, while the latter is made as different as possible.
How about as we're all people, we vote for the views that the candidate supports that go along with what we approve of. Like the guy? Vote for the guy. Hate the guy? Don't vote for him. George Bush Jr. Was an idiot. I wouldn't have voted for him to save my life. Romney was pants on head looney tunes, and flip flopped at every speech he made. Nothing against George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole was alright in my book. I preferred BD over Clinton, and Obama over Romney. I've viewed both sides of the political coin. And that's how it bloody well should be: choosing the guy who more closely relates to what you are looking for. Being locked in to a party is as pants on head stupid as Mittens Dumb gak Romney.
The one thing that I am having trouble understanding is when "thug" became a racist code word when it instead refers to a type of behaviour (criminal) rather than the colour of skin of the perpetrator. Does it have anything to do with rappers who started the whole "thug life" glorification of violence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the majority of crack users are black then any law that punishes crack at a higher level than powder automatically affects black people more. That's basic statistics and has nothing to do with worldviews.
I think people get defensive because they mistake "affects blacks" with "targets blacks".
But when that happens isn't it also used as de facto evidence of racism?
I see it more often used as a blanket dismissal of the argument and people going "you just think they are racist".
It's why I no longer bother even replying to Voter ID threads because the last few always resulted in people pretending that I called the politicians racist.
Does no one here have an issue that he is calling for people to vote along race lines? I understand that people according to their socio-economic status may already do this to some extent , but it is the socio-economic status that is important not what country of origin they had 200 years ago.
If the government was aiming to do something for the 'urban poor' then surely they would target along socio-economic lines and not race, as I am sure there are urban poor of every racial description.
Bullockist wrote: Does no one here have an issue that he is calling for people to vote along race lines? I understand that people according to their socio-economic status may already do this to some extent , but it is the socio-economic status that is important not what country of origin they had 200 years ago.
If the government was aiming to do something for the 'urban poor' then surely they would target along socio-economic lines and not race, as I am sure there are urban poor of every racial description.
Race just seems really important to Americans.
"Race just seems really important to Americans."
I was born in the late 70's... so, you can say I'm a product of the 80's / early 90's.
I've had conversations with my elders who lived through the 30's and on... and to a one, we're no where near as racist (culturally) now as it was back in those days.
So, I think it's hard for my generation (and younger) to truly appreciate what it was like and how difficult it was to overcome this part of our history.
Having this sort of discussion can be rather difficult because it's still living memory when folks were treated horribly.
When you ask that Race just seems really important to Americans, there is some truth in that... but, not in the way you'd think.
It's moreabout tribalism than institutional racism these days, imo. (note, I'm not discounting true racism... it still does exist, but it's not as prevalent as it was in those days).
Your middle aged American Dakkaroos have parents that can remember when a black man could get lynched for whistling at a white woman, and went to schools that were probably segregated by race.
You mention the country of origin, 200 years distant, shouldn't a factor, but there was heavy institutionalized racism in this country up until quite recently. Yes, it's still a large problem even now.
Your middle aged American Dakkaroos have parents that can remember when a black man could get lynched for whistling at a white woman.
You mention the country of origin, 200 years distant, shouldn't a factor, but there was heavy institutionalized racism in this country up until quite recently. Yes, it's still a large problem even now.
Those kind of memories would be dependent upon where in the US our parents or grandparents lived. My grandfather is part of the "Greatest Generation" and he went to integrated schools as a child in Connecticut. When my father wasa kid growing up in Philladelphia (1950s) some parents of his classmates were circulated a petition to stop the integration of the schools (which my grandfather refused to sign and integration was going to happen regardless of some angry parents).
Your middle aged American Dakkaroos have parents that can remember when a black man could get lynched for whistling at a white woman, and went to schools that were probably segregated by race.
You mention the country of origin, 200 years distant, shouldn't a factor, but there was heavy institutionalized racism in this country up until quite recently. Yes, it's still a large problem even now.
Yes. I remember the Klan on TV and towns with signs that read "N***, don't let the sun set on your ass here." and similar. I also remember being in Cali, where my melanin challenged mangy bear keister was also a target, and how browns didn't like blacks, Mexicans didn't like Hondurans etc etc.
Thats why the Great Wienie is superior. He accepts all dogs into His Pack.
you ever seen the old covenants of ownership in a house that were similar? I saw some old deeds in Cali that concerned what groups could own the house.
Bullockist wrote: Does no one here have an issue that he is calling for people to vote along race lines? I understand that people according to their socio-economic status may already do this to some extent , but it is the socio-economic status that is important not what country of origin they had 200 years ago.
Without being presumptuous, I'm fairly certain that's what sebster is speaking to. It just so happens that for Black Americans, most also fall along the same socio-economic lines. Which isn't the case for white Americans.
I think you'd find that "West Coast Whites" are on the opposite spectrum as "Southern Whites." They have money and overwhelming vote to the left.
@Dreadclaw - The problem with "thug" as a code word is that I truly believe there many people that use it according to it's actual meaning. I think soccer hooligans of all races are thugs. I think violent white criminals are thugs. That follows with the actual definition. However, I think it's become a replacement word for many for "Ni##@$."
I actually made the mistake of commenting on a Blaze Post yesterday about it, because so many people were calling Octavius Ellis (black) a "thug" for the flagrant 2 he got in the UC-Purdue game. I asked if they also though Christian Laettner (white) was a thug for kicking Timberlake in the chest in the 90s. The general consensus was no, Laettner was just a "spoiled punk."
The whole line of conversation was pretty despicable, I was called a "white race baiter" multiple times (whatever the feth that means) and I regret commenting.
Jim Crow laws and segration weren't federal laws, they were state laws. Depending on where you lived you had different experiences with race. The fact that Alabama has miscegenation laws just proves my point, different laws, different states. If my grandfather had grown up in Birmingham Alabama instead of Shelton Connecticut he wouldn't have gone to an integrated school and would have likely had different opinions on racial equality.
Of course, racism wasn't, and isn't, simply a southern problem. Boston, MA, Philladelphia PA, and Newark NJ have all had horrible, violent race riots that dwarf current situations like Ferguson. There are plenty of municipalities well north of the Mason Dixon Line with a terrible record of racism.
Look at places like Chicago IL and Detroit MI today. Black populations in urban locales struggling with high unemployment, failing schools, drugs, violent crime and poverty and those cities are northern states with strict gun control laws, pro-union labor laws and decades of uninterrupted governance by Democrats.
There are plenty of stupid laws still on the books I wouldn't use them to make sweeping generalizationsabout the country as a whole. The Pennsylvania town where I attended college still had a law on the books that forbid sororities from having off campus housing because any private residence with more than a half dozen single women living in it was deemed to be a brothel. Does that make the whole state and the whole country a bunch of misogynistic sexist bigots?
I think it would be cool if all white people voted Democrat at the same time that all black people voted Republican. Meanwhile all Indian people could vote Green and all American Native people could vote Communist. Hispanic people would be allowed to vote Independent.
While I am a fan of equality and Stephen A. Smith, the Affordable Care Act is horrible, and our President is currently using his Executive powers to weaken and divide a country that at this point in time should be coming closer together. Why is it all African Americans should vote or expect something, or all Mexican Americans or whatever...why isn't it all American citizens should expect their leaders to lead instead of serve their own interests and agendas, or only the agendas of their constituents instead of the agendas of the citizens, black white brown green man woman whatever that are the American people. It's amazing that nationalism is often confused for racism. Do I deserve more because I'm a white American? No. Do you deserve more because you're black? No. All Americans have the same rights under the Constitution that's how it's supposed to be. What we should all be voting for is a good leader, we should be demanding that politicians are leaders not just politicians. I wouldn't let Obama take my son for the weekend on a camping trip because I don't think he could keep him safe, and I wouldn't have let Romney take him either. It's time the citizens of this country stop saying "I deserve this because I was born this way," and stand up for all of our rights against the politicians who in all reality only care about their own bottom line. Government dividing the population leads to government controlling our lives. Read history, that's how it works. Using racism over and over in popular media and political posturing does nothing but divide the CITIZENS of America. I really wish we could all just realize that we are Americans first, and then color of our skin wouldn't be bargaining chips or excuses, and someone like Stephen A. Smith could just go crazy about basketball instead of being so concerned with the color of his own skin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as for Jim Crow laws or whatever, if we are going to continue to look backwards instead of forwards, then let's all look at how oppressive governments of the past used old animosities to divide it's people. Worry about now, and tomorrow. Learn from the past instead of using it as some abstract reason to feel like you've been or are being persecuted.
I'd ague it isn't about race politics at all.
I used to be appalled at australian aboriginal living standards, then i watched a special on a low income general australians ( as not all white) living in a proscribed area. Interestingly the outcomes were virtually the same as an aboriginal community.
I 'd not hate to say it. if you put any one in a similar situation you'll end up with the same result no matter the race.
It's socio economics that matter not race.
Less division , more lower economy lifting properties.
Dr.muchachos I can see the separation you are indicating and less of the racial divide.
Bullockist wrote: I'd ague it isn't about race politics at all.
I used to be appalled at australian aboriginal living standards, then i watched a special on a low income general australians ( as not all white) living in a proscribed area. Interestingly the outcomes were virtually the same as an aboriginal community.
I 'd not hate to say it. if you put any one in a similar situation you'll end up with the same result no matter the race.
It's socio economics that matter not race.
Less division , more lower economy lifting properties.
Dr.muchachos I can see the separation you are indicating and less of the racial divide.
Funny how govt keeps trying to "fix" the problem of poverty yet so many people remain impoverished. It's almost like they want a segment of society to be dependent on govt programs and therefore beholden to voting for a govt that keeps the subsidies flowing.
whembly wrote: Never heard of that... is it meant to be derogatory? Or a slang?
Derogatory
Do you mean "hapa"? I've only heard the term used by people of mixed East Asian and European Caucasian ancestry to describe themselves.
I'm firmly of the opinion that people of mixed asian and caucasian ancestry can have nothing derogatory about them. They are hands down the most beautiful people in the world. Yes Jihadin ,I do include you in that
Prestor john, no matter how much the government helps there will always be people on the bottom and the trouble with being on the bottom is the examples given by the parents there are not very conjusive to ambition or examples of how to live. What I am trying to say is it isn't an easy fix problem as education is the key and not just necessarily to blame on the people involved themselves. I b et half of the institutionally social serviced in Australia have no idea what it is like to live with a good weekly wage - so they have nothing prodding them to go out and get one.
