(11-18-2020 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

So hard to get entrenched Democrats to understand this difference.


This is why I get upset by the Dem practice of nominating/voting based on race/sex instead of character and issues - the difference between basing the choice on what is outside and what is inside.

My response was not the most polite, because I found the comment I was responding to to be unbelievably insulting.

I'm calling a spade, a spade. The Republican party, especially at the national level, has had an overall lack of diversity. Do you disagree with this?

If you do disagree with that, why?

The incoming legislators featured in that photo appear to represent people of different sexes and ethnicities - whether we like the answer or not, people of different backgrounds have different lived experiences and all groups are made better by having people different backgrounds represented. While it was obviously a bit of a back handed compliment, I do think it's good for the Republican party to have more people of diverse backgrounds in its legislating body at the national level. Do you disagree?

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

Yes, despite the best efforts of Democrats to keep them on the plantation, minorities are catching up.

The left has long argued that minorities lack the educational opportunities of the majority... by the segregation practiced by Democrats in the early 1900's and continuing with the segregation practiced by Democrats in the 2000's.... so it should come as no surprise that the number of highly qualified applicants for high level positions would at least marginally favor those with better educational opportunities.

Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

Democrats SHOULD be making efforts to make up for their centuries of continued segregation. Just because they now package it as an 'advantage' doesn't mean that separate is now somehow inherently equal.

I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

(11-18-2020 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm calling a spade, a spade. The Republican party, especially at the national level, has had an overall lack of diversity. Do you disagree with this?

If you do disagree with that, why?

The incoming legislators featured in that photo appear to represent people of different sexes and ethnicities - whether we like the answer or not, people of different backgrounds have different lived experiences and all groups are made better by having people different backgrounds represented. While it was obviously a bit of a back handed compliment, I do think it's good for the Republican party to have more people of diverse backgrounds in its legislating body at the national level. Do you disagree?

I already answered this... and if THAT is what you think you were doing, no wonder you get so much 'hate mail' on here. Insulting people by calling them 'improving' racists (which is EXACTLY what you did) is not remotely a compliment, back-handed or otherwise.

Segregating minorities into 'poor' districts and then patting yourself on the back for your 'diversity' of having minorities elect a minority is the very definition of tokenism. The minorities who are elected in 'white majority' districts are the only ones who are embracing diversity... and overwhelmingly, those districts 'swing' with a fair amount of regularity.... both left and right as well as minority to majority.

(11-18-2020 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

Yes, despite the best efforts of Democrats to keep them on the plantation, minorities are catching up.

The left has long argued that minorities lack the educational opportunities of the majority... by the segregation practiced by Democrats in the early 1900's and continuing with the segregation practiced by Democrats in the 2000's.... so it should come as no surprise that the number of highly qualified applicants for high level positions would at least marginally favor those with better educational opportunities.

Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

Democrats SHOULD be making efforts to make up for their centuries of continued segregation. Just because they now package it as an 'advantage' doesn't mean that separate is now somehow inherently equal.

I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

Lolz..... coming from the guy that used a 1970 lawsuit to label Trump. God that irony is rich.

(11-18-2020 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

Yes, as in 1950, Republicans still support integration.

Democrats in 1950 supported segregation... not in support of minorities.
Democrats in 2020 still support segregation... and they CLAIM it is in support of minorities. At what point did 'separate' become 'equal'? Do you accept that separate is inherently unequal?

I'm not saying 'the same person' did this... I'm saying the party. Somewhere along the lines, Democrats successfully convinced you that people NEEDED 'race' champions. Republicans in the 50's supported integration. They generally still do (as a party). How did 'integration' become code for 'racism'?

By definition, people who support equality would not be champions for ANY race.

(11-18-2020 03:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 11:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting interview qith Congresswoman-elect

Looks like the incoming class of Republican lawmakers is very diverse - immigrants and children of immigrants. People of all races and both sexes.

Burgess Owens

Catching up with the times - this is good!

Yes, despite the best efforts of Democrats to keep them on the plantation, minorities are catching up.

The left has long argued that minorities lack the educational opportunities of the majority... by the segregation practiced by Democrats in the early 1900's and continuing with the segregation practiced by Democrats in the 2000's.... so it should come as no surprise that the number of highly qualified applicants for high level positions would at least marginally favor those with better educational opportunities.

Unlike Democrats, I'd argue that Republicans are electing highly qualified candidates who simply happen to be minorities... whereas Democrats have often elected people at least in part BECAUSE they are minorities. The difference between 'race not being a factor' and 'MAKING race a factor'.

Democrats SHOULD be making efforts to make up for their centuries of continued segregation. Just because they now package it as an 'advantage' doesn't mean that separate is now somehow inherently equal.

I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

Lolz..... coming from the guy that used a 1970 lawsuit to label Trump. God that irony is rich.

Well... it is literally the same guy as opposed to completely different people born generations apart. Do you really not see the difference?

(11-18-2020 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

Yes, as in 1950, Republicans still support integration.

Democrats in 1950 supported segregation... not in support of minorities.
Democrats in 2020 still support segregation... and they CLAIM it is in support of minorities. At what point did 'separate' become 'equal'? Do you accept that separate is inherently unequal?

I'm not saying 'the same person' did this... I'm saying the party. Somewhere along the lines, Democrats successfully convinced you that people NEEDED 'race' champions. Republicans in the 50's supported integration. They generally still do (as a party). How did 'integration' become code for 'racism'?

By definition, people who support equality would not be champions for ANY race.

Remind me how Democrats support segregation in 2020? I know I've read it here before but I can't remember the talking points.

Up until about the mid-1960s, empirical evidence shows that blacks were making tremendous economic progress. Then that pretty much slowed down. Why?

One possibility is the imposition of the so-called War on Poverty. "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat," may be good for winning elections, but it's not good for fighting poverty.

How could a "War on Poverty" make poverty worse? I can think of two major factors:
1) The financial rewards for single mothers, while perhaps well-intended, have had the perverse effect of increasing percentage of fatherless homes for black children from very low in the 1950s to something like 70% now. That has adverse effects in terms of crime, violence, and work ethic, among others.
2) The myriad of various focused, uncoordinated, and means tested welfare programs have created a severe financial disincentive to improve one's earning capacity. Studies have shown that for a family of 3 or 4, from about $15,000 earned income (poverty) to about $55,000 (middle class), for each incremental dollar earned the recipient loses a dollar to increased taxes and loss of qualification for welfare programs, in essence a "100% effective tax rate." People choose not to work, not because they are lazy but because they would lose money by doing so.

My proposals for Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a universal basic income (UBI) based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund would eliminate both the two-parent disincentive and the "welfare trap" work disincentive. In so doing, I believe they would break the poverty cycle that traps blacks and other minorities.

(11-18-2020 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Up until about the mid-1960s, empirical evidence shows that blacks were making tremendous economic progress. Then that pretty much slowed down. Why?

One possibility is the imposition of the so-called War on Poverty. "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat," may be good for winning elections, but it's not good for fighting poverty.

How could a "War on Poverty" make poverty worse? I can think of two major factors:
1) The financial rewards for single mothers, while perhaps well-intended, have had the perverse effect of increasing percentage of fatherless homes for black children from very low in the 1950s to something like 70% now. That has adverse effects in terms of crime, violence, and work ethic, among others.
2) The myriad of various focused, uncoordinated, and means tested welfare programs have created a severe financial disincentive to improve one's earning capacity. Studies have shown that for a family of 3 or 4, from about $15,000 earned income (poverty) to about $55,000 (middle class), for each incremental dollar earned the recipient loses a dollar to increased taxes and loss of qualification for welfare programs, in essence a "100% effective tax rate." People choose not to work, not because they are lazy but because they would lose money by doing so.

My proposals for Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a universal basic income (UBI) based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund would eliminate both the two-parent disincentive and the "welfare trap" work disincentive. In so doing, I believe they would break the poverty cycle that traps blacks and other minorities.

How does this tie in with supporting segregation?

(11-18-2020 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm calling a spade, a spade. The Republican party, especially at the national level, has had an overall lack of diversity. Do you disagree with this?

If you do disagree with that, why?

The incoming legislators featured in that photo appear to represent people of different sexes and ethnicities - whether we like the answer or not, people of different backgrounds have different lived experiences and all groups are made better by having people different backgrounds represented. While it was obviously a bit of a back handed compliment, I do think it's good for the Republican party to have more people of diverse backgrounds in its legislating body at the national level. Do you disagree?

I already answered this... and if THAT is what you think you were doing, no wonder you get so much 'hate mail' on here. Insulting people by calling them 'improving' racists (which is EXACTLY what you did) is not remotely a compliment, back-handed or otherwise.

Segregating minorities into 'poor' districts and then patting yourself on the back for your 'diversity' of having minorities elect a minority is the very definition of tokenism. The minorities who are elected in 'white majority' districts are the only ones who are embracing diversity... and overwhelmingly, those districts 'swing' with a fair amount of regularity.... both left and right as well as minority to majority.

Frist, where did you answer this?

Second, what do you mean by "Segregating minorities into 'poor' districts and then patting yourself on the back for your 'diversity' of having minorities elect a minority?" Are you suggesting the Democrats have the sole responsibility for districting? Are you suggesting the Democrats have the sole responsibility for segregation?

Third, I'm sorry that pointing out that the Republican party, on a national level, has been rather homogenous, seems to offend you. I didn't proffer a commentary on why that's happened, yet you seem to take issue with what you think I'm implying by pointing out a fact. All I said is that the Republican Party is starting to catch up with the times (as in, demographics are changing and maybe the party's diversity is too).

Fourth, I made a commentary about the PARTY, not conservatives, Republican voters, etc. You have levied criticisms about the Democratic party that I find pretty offensive if they were levied at a person, but you don't see me throwing the same kind of tempur tantrum.

Maybe I get "hate mail," because I don't blindly fall for the majority of your commentary hook, line, and sinker?

(11-18-2020 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 02:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Democrats of the mid-1900's have to do with the Democrats of 2020. Same holds true for the Republican side. You are suggesting that today's Democrats should feel some level of guilt when it comes to issues of race and act accordingly? Where do the Republicans stand in your view when it comes to this issue? Should they be looked at as champions for black people on this issue? I'm not that well-informed as to the who's and the why's of who was fighting and who was advocating segregation back in the day.

Yes, as in 1950, Republicans still support integration.

Democrats in 1950 supported segregation... not in support of minorities.
Democrats in 2020 still support segregation... and they CLAIM it is in support of minorities. At what point did 'separate' become 'equal'? Do you accept that separate is inherently unequal?

I'm not saying 'the same person' did this... I'm saying the party. Somewhere along the lines, Democrats successfully convinced you that people NEEDED 'race' champions. Republicans in the 50's supported integration. They generally still do (as a party). How did 'integration' become code for 'racism'?

By definition, people who support equality would not be champions for ANY race.

Remind me how Democrats support segregation in 2020? I know I've read it here before but I can't remember the talking points.

Yeah, I'm not following how either party currently support segregation. Must be why I get so much hate mail...

Democrats clearly support the policies that trap blacks and other minorities and poor on the welfare plantation.

(11-18-2020 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats clearly support the policies that trap blacks and other minorities and poor on the welfare plantation.

So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

First, "calling a spade a spade". I always thought this was a racist statement. I play a lot of cards, and have never heard it used in a card-playing manner. Perhaps it relates to the difference between a spade and a shovel? Maybe that is why Obama did not call them spade-ready jobs? In any case, I avoid using this phrase just because it might be racist or taken as racist by the Purity Police.

Second, yes, in the 50's, The Dems were the racists and the GOP got most of the black vote. Rather famously, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he is reputed to have said, "Well there goes the south", meaning the southern Democrats were being lost to the national Democratic Party.

Third, before the War on Poverty and other programs like that, the black family was doing better. The Tulsa riot has been mentioned here. Did any of you know that Tulsa was known as the "Black Wall Street" before the riot? If it was not democratic programs, to what do you "Progressives" attribute the decline of the number of black families with fathers, the continuing segregation, and the continuing poverty?

Fourth, it is true that most Republicans are white. But that is due to self-segregation, not some sort of apartheid. The GOP has been, and is, and will be making efforts to appeal to all kinds of people, not by pandering to their race, but with common sense economics that will help everybody.

Fifth, The GOP freshmen include a wide variety of people, measured by the things Democrats hold dear - race, sex, place of national origin. They are much less diverse, measured by the things Republicans hold dear, like attitudes toward capitalism, law enforcement, and small business.

(11-18-2020 04:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First, "calling a spade a spade". I always thought this was a racist statement. I play a lot of cards, and have never heard it used in a card-playing manner. Perhaps it relates to the difference between a spade and a shovel? Maybe that is why Obama did not call them spade-ready jobs? In any case, I avoid using this phrase just because it might be racist or taken as racist by the Purity Police.

Second, yes, in the 50's, The Dems were the racists and the GOP got most of the black vote. Rather famously, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he is reputed to have said, "Well there goes the south", meaning the southern Democrats were being lost to the national Democratic Party.

Third, before the War on Poverty and other programs like that, the black family was doing better. The Tulsa riot has been mentioned here. Did any of you know that Tulsa was known as the "Black Wall Street" before the riot? If it was not democratic programs, to what do you "Progressives" attribute the decline of the number of black families with fathers, the continuing segregation, and the continuing poverty?

Fourth, it is true that most Republicans are white. But that is due to self-segregation, not some sort of apartheid. The GOP has been, and is, and will be making efforts to appeal to all kinds of people, not by pandering to their race, but with common sense economics that will help everybody.

Fifth, The GOP freshmen include a wide variety of people, measured by the things Democrats hold dear - race, sex, place of national origin. They are much less diverse, measured by the things Republicans hold dear, like attitudes toward capitalism, law enforcement, and small business.

From wiki:

Quote:"Call a spade a spade" is a figurative expression. It is also referred to as "let's call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool", which refers to calling something "as it is",[1] that is, by its right or proper name, without "beating about the bush"—being outspoken about it, truthfully, frankly, and directly, even to the point of being blunt or rude, and even if the subject is considered coarse, impolite, or unpleasant.

The idiom originates in the classical Greek of Plutarch's Apophthegmata Laconica, and was introduced into the English language in 1542 in Nicolas Udall's translation of the Apophthegmes, where Erasmus had seemingly replaced Plutarch's images of "trough" and "fig" with the more familiar "spade." The idiom has appeared in many literary and popular works, including those of Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson,[2] W. Somerset Maugham, and Jonathan Swift.

(11-18-2020 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Remind me how Democrats support segregation in 2020? I know I've read it here before but I can't remember the talking points.

There IS no talking point. This is my position alone, some of the right may agree or not... articulated many times on here.

(11-18-2020 03:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frist, where did you answer this?

Post 736. The one you quoted. I've said similar numerous times though... take your pick. You choose to make a very narrow interpretation of a phrase and then try and make me answer your limited question...

Quote:Second, what do you mean by "Segregating minorities into 'poor' districts and then patting yourself on the back for your 'diversity' of having minorities elect a minority?" Are you suggesting the Democrats have the sole responsibility for districting? Are you suggesting the Democrats have the sole responsibility for segregation?

For this purpose, yes. When Democrats Gerrymander, they do it to ensure a 'minority' district under the pretense of empowering them by letting them elect one of their own. They then discourage gentrification which discourages home price appreciation, meaning nobody wants to invest in the neighborhood without incentives, which almost always end up 'not' working the way their advocates say they will, and of course, they blame 'business' for doing what business does... because they don't want to make bad investments. The overwhelming majority of small businesses and wealth in this country... not speaking about how much someone makes from it, but about how many people make a lot... is funded by home price appreciation. You want to open a bar or store? Put up your home equity. That's just one piece of it, but its part of it. I went into much greater detail in another thread, I won't repeat it here. Republicans do not generally create 'minority' districts. They are quite often attacked by the left for 'taking away their voice' by including them into what are quite often 'better' districts... and the fact that they still get elected demonstrates that they haven't lost their voice.

Quote:Third, I'm sorry that pointing out that the Republican party, on a national level, has been rather homogenous, seems to offend you. I didn't proffer a commentary on why that's happened, yet you seem to take issue with what you think I'm implying by pointing out a fact. All I said is that the Republican Party is starting to catch up with the times (as in, demographics are changing and maybe the party's diversity is too).

Fourth, I made a commentary about the PARTY, not conservatives, Republican voters, etc. You have levied criticisms about the Democratic party that I find pretty offensive if they were levied at a person, but you don't see me throwing the same kind of tempur tantrum.

Laughable. The response you GAVE was you throwing a temper tantrum. You do it almost every day on here Lad. You're a dick in the way you talk to people. No matter HOW you think it sounds to you, that's exactly what you meant, so own it. It's ridiculous for you to be speaking about minorities 'finally' being elected by people who lean right, and then to claim you weren't speaking about voters. Who do you think elected them

Go ahead and show me where I said Democrats were racists... or even people who voted for Biden. I DID speak about the DNC that way, sort of. None of you are the DNC... nor do you vote for the DNC. You just listen to their lies and follow it. You speak about Trump-bots the way I speak about people who so blindly follow the DNC. It's a cult of power and manipulation. I know plenty of progressives who agree with me. The only difference is they think they can 'control' the DNC from the inside. We shall see.

Quote:Maybe I get "hate mail," because I don't blindly fall for the majority of your commentary hook, line, and sinker?

Yeah... reading is still not your strong suit. As I said, disagree with my position all you want... I don't care.... so your comment here is false on its face. My concern is with your choice of terms to describe people who disagree with you... and I addressed that. 'The times' includes Democratic gerrymandering that creates segregation.... something Republicans are against on many levels. Patting yourself on the back for this and telling others that they are behind the times is laughable, especially in that this is exactly what racists in the 50's did. Same actions, different reasons... just as I said.

I'll let you decide for yourself if its because you're 'behind the times', because you are misinformed, because you are blind or because you are an idealist. All sorts of possible reasons in addition to the ones I've mentioned... but the end result is that you've segregated many minorities into minority districts... and somehow think you can overcome the reality that separate is inherently unequal... and that the ONLY way to create racial equality is to end segregation by race, even if you THINK you are helping.

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats clearly support the policies that trap blacks and other minorities and poor on the welfare plantation.

So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

This, though its semantics. The legislation they support that limits them includes creating districts that are quite frequently poor, have poor performing schools, high crime, less HPA, fewer businesses meaning fewer opportunities. Its segregation under the guise of creating political power... which only works if it serves the greater party goals.

The only difference between this and the 50's is one was done by force and this is being done by 'promises'.

(11-18-2020 04:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First, "calling a spade a spade". I always thought this was a racist statement. I play a lot of cards, and have never heard it used in a card-playing manner. Perhaps it relates to the difference between a spade and a shovel? Maybe that is why Obama did not call them spade-ready jobs? In any case, I avoid using this phrase just because it might be racist or taken as racist by the Purity Police.

Second, yes, in the 50's, The Dems were the racists and the GOP got most of the black vote. Rather famously, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he is reputed to have said, "Well there goes the south", meaning the southern Democrats were being lost to the national Democratic Party.

Third, before the War on Poverty and other programs like that, the black family was doing better. The Tulsa riot has been mentioned here. Did any of you know that Tulsa was known as the "Black Wall Street" before the riot? If it was not democratic programs, to what do you "Progressives" attribute the decline of the number of black families with fathers, the continuing segregation, and the continuing poverty?

If the Democrats are keeping black people down... why is it that black people vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats? How have the Democrats so successfully fooled black voters to vote for policies that actually harm them? If this is the case, why then is it that you guys are able to recognize this concerted effort by the Democrats to "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat" while black people are not?

(11-18-2020 03:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, I'm not following how either party currently support segregation. Must be why I get so much hate mail...

Perhaps allegations of segregationism are often uttered in bad faith.

Around four years ago a Rice faculty member called me a segregationist because I disagreed with him on a then-popular topic. This was not some socially clueless scientist, but a professor in the humanities, supposedly steeped in reason and critical thinking.

(11-18-2020 05:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If the Democrats are keeping black people down... why is it that black people vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats? How have the Democrats so successfully fooled black voters to vote for policies that actually harm them? If this is the case, why then is it that you guys are able to recognize this concerted effort by the Democrats to "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat" while black people are not?

Black people are starting to wake up, and voted less overwhelmingly democrat this time. The big problem I see is that republicans have done an incredibly poor job of presenting this issue.

(11-18-2020 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If the Democrats are keeping black people down... why is it that black people vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats? How have the Democrats so successfully fooled black voters to vote for policies that actually harm them? If this is the case, why then is it that you guys are able to recognize this concerted effort by the Democrats to "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat" while black people are not?

Black people are starting to wake up, and voted less overwhelmingly democrat this time. The big problem I see is that republicans have done an incredibly poor job of presenting this issue.

But you say that this has been going on since the 1950s. Seventy years. Black people have been duped for seventy years?! How were you and others on this forum able to see through this so clearly whereas black people have not be able to? If they are "starting to wake up" (as you say) why has it taken them so long?