• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has the Democratic Party done more to help or hurt the black community?

Tinfoil Hater said:
It seems cities that have large populations of African Americans living in poverty have been under a monopoly of Democratic party leadership for years. Detroit, Ferguson ans Chicago come to mind. Yet many community leaders from those cities often blame Republicans for the state of the black community- but doesn't much of the blame fall on the Democratic party- Starting with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs? Things for African Americans seem to have gotten even worse with Barack Obama as president- and yet the Republicans are getting the blame
Click to expand...

No, many agree that the dems aren't doing nearly as much as they could - although I'd outright laugh at anyone who says that things aren't improving.

But why would I bother with a party that's sunk to running a white nationalist for the highest office in the country - and yes, Trump's a white nationalist in addition to being an all-around idiot. Yes, I'd like to have two parties that give a damn about black communities in general, and I say this even as a liberal. It's very clear that in general, the GOP does not, and has not for quite some time.
 
casebro said:
By this, I assume you mean, a layer of Repubs? State gov? Not in those states. Any layer at the fed level has flipped and flopped. Congress/senate?/Pres all.

Nah, the problem for the blacks is that the Dem Pols have learned to buy their votes with social programs. The Pols get power, the children get candy. Keep them ignorant children, they will continue to swap votes for candy- the Dems run the schools too.

And now, the colleges are teaching propaganda to the blacks too. Divisively.

Used to be America was spoken of as a "melting pot". The concept of unity has been replaced with divisive agitation. So that the politicians can keep us scared, so we will vote for them to lead as to safety. And give us candy. It works for the Repubs too.

Look at the divisive issues- gun control, abortion, SSM, segregation have all been decided by the supreme court, yet the agitators keep them in the fore front.

We are being played. It's just a question of which flavor kool-ade is our candy.

You know kool-ade is all sugar, no nutrition.
Click to expand...

There is actually 1 layer you are forgetting : the corporate/housing layer. This is mostly a right wing oriented layer. Statistic and blind check have shown that when it comes to housing, having a slight more colored skins automatically give you a disadvantage at renting or even sometimes buying house in some places. Means you can be reduced to house in a less good environment with all the baggage. The same happens sometimes, blind checks shows that minorities sometimes have more difficulties to land an interview and more difficulties to land the job after interview. The same is reflected by the way with the slant in accepting location for example for airbnb.

Note that this does not need to be widespread, if only a few percentage of people do it, it can eb enough to skew the whole social environment AGAINST a minority.
 
Mumbles said:
No, many agree that the dems aren't doing nearly as much as they could - although I'd outright laugh at anyone who says that things aren't improving.

But why would I bother with a party that's sunk to running a white nationalist for the highest office in the country - and yes, Trump's a white nationalist in addition to being an all-around idiot. Yes, I'd like to have two parties that give a damn about black communities in general, and I say this even as a liberal. It's very clear that in general, the GOP does not, and has not for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Hey you, the liberals haven't helped you at all. Why don't you give the Klan a chance?
 
Let's not ignore the fact that the GOP has pretty much abandoned any efforts at getting elected. Our recent Mayorial election in Philly the GOP candidate was just a quickly converted Democrat trying to do another runoff.

Prior to that the last GOP chance at the Philly mayorship was Sam Katz whose strong campaign in 2003 almost unseated the Demoscratic Mayor. Katz worked with basically no support from the national GOP (not unusual for GOP city mayoral candidates) and when the incumbant mayor found an FBI wiretap in his office he was able to link Katz and the unpopular Bush and Latz lost.

The GOP, when it comes to urban centers and minority populations has done little courting beyond whining: "Why don't you support u-u-u-sssss!?" with some lip service to how things may not have improved as much as they theoretically could have during Democratic administrations.

But they rarely have any answers that minorities would be interested as 'tax cuts for the rich' doesn't strike any bells in North Philadelphia. So you get the comments like above of how the minority populations have been 'bribed' and such with social programs...you know the ones that keep them from starvation, homelessness, massive medical debt, and much worse.

In short, the GOP is indifferent to minorites and most cities, and they are indifferent right back.
 
kookbreaker said:
Let's not ignore the fact that the GOP has pretty much abandoned any efforts at getting elected. Our recent Mayorial election in Philly the GOP candidate was just a quickly converted Democrat trying to do another runoff.

Prior to that the last GOP chance at the Philly mayorship was Sam Katz whose strong campaign in 2003 almost unseated the Demoscratic Mayor. Katz worked with basically no support from the national GOP (not unusual for GOP city mayoral candidates) and when the incumbant mayor found an FBI wiretap in his office he was able to link Katz and the unpopular Bush and Latz lost.

The GOP, when it comes to urban centers and minority populations has done little courting beyond whining: "Why don't you support u-u-u-sssss!?" with some lip service to how things may not have improved as much as they theoretically could have during Democratic administrations.

But they rarely have any answers that minorities would be interested as 'tax cuts for the rich' doesn't strike any bells in North Philadelphia. So you get the comments like above of how the minority populations have been 'bribed' and such with social programs...you know the ones that keep them from starvation, homelessness, massive medical debt, and much worse.

In short, the GOP is indifferent to minorites and most cities, and they are indifferent right back.
Click to expand...

Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.

"Try us! We couldn't be worse."

Maybe the Dems should do that with the po' white trash GOP vote. "Hey, Goober. Now, seriously.... y'all been electing Republicans since 1964. I see you've moved into your pa's double-wide. Same one he had back then, isn't it? How's the upwards mobility thing going for you? Hear you lost a couple of more good ol' boy buddies last week. One to liver failure, t'other ate his gun. Just what has the GOP done for you? Might as well try us. Yeah, we're gonna take away your illegal guns and give some ******* and beaners better health care, but what have you got to lose. Clearly the Republicans aren't doing anything for you. Why not vote Democrat this time?"
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.

"Try us! We couldn't be worse."
Click to expand...

Definitely, many of the worst problems in cities (the severe lack of funding, and the ravages of the Crack Era) actually stem back to the federal level - Ronald Reagan was astonishingly bad here. GWB was laughably incompetent. Nixon...well, where did you think that supremacist Trump got his "Law and Order" debate line from? And that's not to mention Watergate. I guess that leaves GHWB as possibly not openly hostile.
 
Mumbles said:
Nixon...well, where did you think that supremacist Trump got his "Law and Order" debate line from? And that's not to mention Watergate.
Click to expand...

Nixon was so weird about that. Apart from being content with exploiting racial animosity for cynical political gain, going back and forth on racist and antisemitic rants seems to have been a favourite pastime of his (although he seems to have liked to consider every possible direction on various issues). Regardless of that, he also apparently treated black people, including White House staff, better than any of his predecessors; he seems to have treated them as equals. I've seen it attributed to his strict Quaker upbringing, which is a bit hard to believe considering his disregard for the teachings of the denomination otherwise...

The man must have had a lot of cognitive dissonance for sure.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.
Click to expand...

There was a time when being a city Republican was an actual species and was simply a business friendly, reduce-spending type of politician. They might not be the best for minority concerns, but were not overtly hostile to them, either. They stayed away from issues like abortion and similar issues with the attitude that it was all fait accompli anyway. The city GOP was not fond of tilting at windmills.

In the past their candidacy might have actually gotten some support from national GOP. This might have been true up until around 2006-2008. Then the city Republicans were seen as RINOs at best and traitors at worst. The rise of the Tea Party turned the GOP to crazy and the City Republicans I know just roll their eyes at what happens nationally. A few of them (Guilianni) end up drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
Argumemnon said:
Wait, how does that work? Up here in Canada you can only vote for one person at a time.
Click to expand...

You can only vote for one person for one office, but the ballot may be for multiple offices, allowing you to vote for multiple people. So for example, you could be voting for president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, state congressman, mayor, and a few more besides, all on one ballot. So one individual could vote 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, all on the same ballot.

Not that this is actually relevant to my original argument, but if we're on a silly tangent, might as well take it all the way.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Nixon was so weird about that. Apart from being content with exploiting racial animosity for cynical political gain, going back and forth on racist and antisemitic rants seems to have been a favourite pastime of his (although he seems to have liked to consider every possible direction on various issues). Regardless of that, he also apparently treated black people, including White House staff, better than any of his predecessors; he seems to have treated them as equals. I've seen it attributed to his strict Quaker upbringing, which is a bit hard to believe considering his disregard for the teachings of the denomination otherwise...

The man must have had a lot of cognitive dissonance for sure.
Click to expand...
I get it. Law and Order disproportionately effects blacks, therefore the argument is that it's racist & that anybody who supports it is racist. Careful analysis reveals that there are other more prevalent, less polarizing, and beneficial explanations.
 
Ziggurat said:
People aren't going to agree, and at the end of the day, this question doesn't even really matter. Whether or not the Democratic party has done more in the past, the important question now is whether black voters will benefit more now from continuing to vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats, or from voting some other way. And on that score, I think the argument is clearer: blacks would do better to vote for both Republicans and Democrats. Particularly in many inner cities, the one-party status quo has been devastating to black communities. One-party rule is not healthy for any government.

And even nationally, the Democrats basically take black voters for granted. They rile them up with issues like police violence in order to turn out the vote, but then betray them on issues like illegal immigration, the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, etc. But if black voters aren't prepared to vote Republican, and to demonstrate that willingness on at least occasion, then the Democrats are going to keep taking them for granted.
Click to expand...

Maybe the republicans should create policies that are more friendly to cities instead of attacking them every chance they get?

Vote republican they have a black sheriff who lets people die of dehydration in his jail. That is surely going to win votes.
 
ServiceSoon said:
I get it. Law and Order disproportionately effects blacks, therefore the argument is that it's racist & that anybody who supports it is racist. Careful analysis reveals that there are other more prevalent, less polarizing, and beneficial explanations.
Click to expand...

Stop and frisk is great at keeping the blacks in their place and taking away their legal guns as is Trumps plan. Classic Law and Order policy.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Maybe the republicans should create policies that are more friendly to cities instead of attacking them every chance they get?
Click to expand...

City-friendly policies like banning Uber or requiring government licenses to cut hair?

Vote republican they have a black sheriff who lets people die of dehydration in his jail. That is surely going to win votes.
Click to expand...

As opposed to, say, Baltimore. Or New York. Or Milwaukee. Democratic government strongholds (more like strangleholds). And yet....
 
Ziggurat said:
You can only vote for one person for one office, but the ballot may be for multiple offices, allowing you to vote for multiple people. So for example, you could be voting for president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, state congressman, mayor, and a few more besides, all on one ballot. So one individual could vote 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, all on the same ballot.

Not that this is actually relevant to my original argument, but if we're on a silly tangent, might as well take it all the way.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay.

I understand what you mean, but I wasn't under the impression that this is what you were talking about when you said this:

Ziggurat said:
blacks would do better to vote for both Republicans and Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
Sorry for the delay.

I understand what you mean, but I wasn't under the impression that this is what you were talking about when you said this:
Click to expand...

Of course it wasn't what I originally meant. And I'm assuming that you knew I didn't mean cancelling each other's votes out either when you posted this:

Argumemnon said:
Wouldn't that annul their vote? ;)
Click to expand...

I took your post to be a joke, and went with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom