Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also I do not think elimination of Welfare/Benefits/whatever is right
I do know they mention revamping the benefits system

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

It *is* bad that folks says someone like Rand Paul has cajones for trying to engage this topic, like his Howard speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/10/rand_paul_addresses_howard_university.html

The best thing, maybe, is for all sides to stop making this a race issue and start advocating principled issues period.

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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%).

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

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

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.

AKA "The Southern Strategy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In a gross simplification:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

And back to the same old point: counter point

This White Asian Male going to sit back and watch this unfold

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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."?

It fits his worldview Dreadclaw. That is how he reaches it.

 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.

Wealth