PDA

View Full Version : Blacks & Republicans



David G
01-18-2016, 05:22 PM
Blacks were mentioned twice in the R debate. Black lung. Black market.

Dems, otoh, said things like this --

"There needs to be a concerted effort to address the system racism in our criminal justice system,"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-debate-black-people_us_569c4c22e4b0ce496424e1a3?

Keith Wilson
01-18-2016, 05:29 PM
Hardly surprising. The Republicans have simply given up on getting any significant number of African-American votes, at least in national races.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/ID_PresVote.png&w=1484

S.V. Airlie
01-18-2016, 05:37 PM
Black lung would be a slap at the coal mining industry. I'm surprised they brought it up at all.

Sky Blue
01-18-2016, 05:42 PM
This thread and responses thus far precisely makes the BLM case and explains why the Democrats are taking on the majority of the protests.

It is emblematic of the hypocrisy that BLM points to in protesting Democrats, that is, the social and economic condition of many black Americans in the wake of Mr. Obama has substantially worsened, as various black commentators have publicly stated.

Indeed, with all of the votes going to Democrats, it is the Democrats that have taken up responsibility for the larger condition of black Americans as an electoral matter. It is precisely that Democrats HAVE NOT listened is why the protestors are targeting Democrats for the most part, and yet, as is the case in this thread and in the most tone-deaf manner as might be possible, black votes are held up here as some sort of accomplishment.

It is appalling. You gentlemen really don't get it. Who do you think the protest is for? The party that doesn't get black votes?

David G
01-18-2016, 05:51 PM
This thread and responses thus far precisely makes the BLM case and explains why the Democrats are taking on the majority of the protests.

It is emblematic of the hypocrisy that BLM points to in protesting Democrats, that is, the social and economic condition of many black Americans in the wake of Mr. Obama has substantially worsened, as various black commentators have publicly stated.

Indeed, with all of the votes going to Democrats, it is the Democrats that have taken up responsibility for the larger condition of black Americans as an electoral matter. It is precisely that Democrats HAVE NOT listened is why the protestors are targeting Democrats for the most part, and yet, as is the case in this thread and in the most tone-deaf manner as might be possible, black votes are held up here as some sort of accomplishment.

It is appalling. You gentlemen really don't get it. Who do you think the protest is for? The party that doesn't get black votes?

You have made this case several times already. It has been disproven and dismissed. Repeating it won't make it any more convincing. So please don't pollute this thread with it, too. The topic, in case you missed in your urgency, is comparing & contrasting the positions and stated concerns of each of the parties toward blacks. Maybe approaching the topic from that slant will give you an opportunity to ride your hobbyhorse in a fresh way. That sometimes sheds light. Though I won't be holding my breath.

mdh
01-18-2016, 06:59 PM
You have made this case several times already. It has been disproven and dismissed. Repeating it won't make it any more convincing. So please don't pollute this thread with it, too. The topic, in case you missed in your urgency, is comparing & contrasting the positions and stated concerns of each of the parties toward blacks. Maybe approaching the topic from that slant will give you an opportunity to ride your hobbyhorse in a fresh way. That sometimes sheds light. Though I won't be holding my breath.

Little has ever been proven or disproven in this forum. Dismissed? Yeah. Slap each other on the back and walk away chuckling in the manner of the democrats after giving lip service to the blacks. Notice there was a black, and a Rubio, and a Cruz on the other stage? That's equal opportunity. Ever wonder why rape and racism are being protested on some of the most liberal campuses in the country?

Dismissed.

Sky Blue
01-19-2016, 09:58 AM
Meanwhile... http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868

David G
01-19-2016, 01:49 PM
Meanwhile... http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868

Would that be written by the same Ben S. who covers millennials, Boston, and occasionally ventures forth to shake the pom-poms for some Republican... or denigrate some Democrat? Well, ok then. I'm convinced!!

OK... I lied. Not convinced. This is a source you trust? A writer you follow? An authority you lean on for reliable veractiy and insight? Would you care to show us some instances of his being shown, in the end, to have been correct in his pronouncements, or his intimations? I'm not aware of any, and I read Politico regularly.

Osborne Russell
01-19-2016, 02:27 PM
Hardly surprising. The Republicans have simply given up on getting any significant number of African-American votes, at least in national races.


Not in their ideo-sphere. Keep hope alive!

Reds dream of recognition as the champions of civil rights like a fundamentalist suicide bomber dreams of God giving him forty virgins.

What, no Glenn Beck march this year?

TomF
01-19-2016, 02:41 PM
This thread and responses thus far precisely makes the BLM case and explains why the Democrats are taking on the majority of the protests. It is certainly true that some Dems have race issues, and some Dems use the language of race issues very self-servingly. BLM is right to protest and point this out. Why does BLM not similarly protest at Rep rallies?

Because BLM has entirely abandoned hope that the Republicans or Independents care about their issues at all. What you've carefully chosen to misunderstand, SB, is that the BLM silence indicates a horrendous failure and blight on the Republicans and Independents.

Dave Wright
01-19-2016, 02:42 PM
Re skyblue's politico article:


I think I'll start checking on the age, education, and experience of writers like this. As is all too common in many of these politico pieces, the writer makes his case as strongly and as sensationally as he can, then essentially disowns and abandons it in scattered sentences throughout the piece, as in this case, quote:

"It’s a scenario that requires many unreliable voters to show up at the polls for Trump and for the businessman to avoid the kind of last-minute reevaluation that drove voters away from Howard Dean’s 2004 Democratic primary campaign. It’s still possible for big-money Republican donors, who so far have sat on the sidelines, to find an effective attack on Trump and get it on the air. And even if Trump wins a plurality of the delegates, if no candidate enters Cleveland with the 1,236 needed to win the nomination, he would find himself negotiating on hostile territory in the case of a contested convention"

As I see more and more fools walking around with their noses glued to phone and tablet screens, I wonder I'd we're winding up with readers who simply scan the headlines and first few paragraphs of a piece, and make judgements based on that. All of this catered to by dishonest writers who enjoy vomiting forth their first few sensational irrational paragraphs for effect, then covering their asses with disclaimer sentences hidden in the piece, in an attempty to portray an "honest" journalistic view. These disclaimer sentences essentially destroy the arguments that they are trying to sell. They don't apparently care what they are writing just so they write something - empty thoughts for the automatons with their noses glued to the screens.

F*ck this writer and the horse he rode in on.

David G
01-19-2016, 07:37 PM
We all find it a bit difficult to discern cowflop from profundity when it agrees with our pre-conceived notions. Some worse than others... clearly.

Dave Wright
01-19-2016, 07:59 PM
Schreckinger's piece is entitled "How Donald Trump Defeats Hillary Clinton." Perhaps he'll outdo himself with an even more exciting follow on article entitled "How Kim Kardashian Becomes the First Female U.S. President." That will certainly get him more Internet hits and wider air head viewing. It would be right up his alley.

Osborne Russell
01-19-2016, 08:05 PM
. . . dishonest writers who enjoy vomiting forth their first few sensational irrational paragraphs for effect, then covering their asses with disclaimer sentences hidden in the piece, in an attempty to portray an "honest" journalistic view. These disclaimer sentences essentially destroy the arguments that they are trying to sell.

Yep. When you think about it, there's no reason why cognitive dissonance should only be found among the lower orders, intellectually speaking. It may he harder for them to maintain -- the conscience fights to live -- but they can do it, and consider themselves very modern when they pull it off.