Why Blacks don't vote Republican

[Aberration]

But you never provided an argument. I'll keep pointing out how the conservatives here don't make arguments. They just make unsupported claims and denials.

Do you have any evidence that lynching was on the Democratic platform? Do you have evidence that Blacks voted for Democrats who promoted lynchings? You need that stuff to have a rational argument.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the South were racists. Not a single southern Republican voted for VRA. Not one. Blacks looked to national elections for some kind of assistance to deal with the racist southern states. Truman, JFK and LBJ promoted the VRA which would override the oppression of the southern states.

You see a huge shift after Truman gave a speech to the NAACP (1947?) and the nation. You see another huge shift in 1960 when JFK called Martin Luther King in prison and secured his release.

What is left to argue?

I actually did provide an argument. I’ll keep pointing out that liberals here simply make **** up. They just make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims.

Yes let’s pretend that Democrats did not fillibuster federal anti-lynching laws. Let’s pretend that the majority party did not reject platform amendments condemning the KKK.

Was it actually written in the platform? Like it needs to be. The facts still remain despite hyperbole, black people were voting Democrat before the Democrats pretended to give up their racism. [emoji2369]

And not a bit of that has to do with me being white. [emoji867]

 

[ultmd]

Quote my bigotry. Quote my hatred and ignorance.

:lamo
Sure. But first, quote my bigotry. Calling out your remarks for the obvious ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty they exhibited, isn't "bigotry" on my part. It's TRUTH TELLING. So, please just ADMIT that you were either (1) LYING, or (2) spewing IGNORANCE, when you stated categorically that "lynching" was part of the Democratic Party platfrom. But if you can't do that (and I doubt that you can) at least stop whining about being called out for that kind of rank ignorance. As I noted in my original remarks to you, people like you are known to be snowflakes whenever others mock your displays of ignorance, or your entitlement issues. But my pointing out that your perspective is that of a clueless white guy isn't bigoted. It's factual. If your feelings are damaged by that, or if you're ashamed of it, that's your problem, not mine.

It’s you who made it about my race. Spin that how you want. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells will see your racism for what it is.

:lamo
What a stupid thing to say. This entire thread is about race. Apparently, you had no problem with that until YOUR race was raised as a factor in your ignorant opinions.
So, I'm sorry, but you can't offer up your clueless-entitled-white-guy statements about the motivations of African-American voters, and then pretend that I "made this about race". The only thing I did was enter YOUR RACE into the discussion, based upon the blatantly ignorant and/or dishonest remarks you made. It's always a given that you and your ilk will scream "race card" whenever someone hurts your feelings with the TRUTH about you. Your angry little brain is just so poisoned with entitlement that you THINK your race is off-limits for discussion and/or criticism by others. And that's both funny, and pathetic of you.

If you’re the debater you think you are you wouldn’t have thrown the race card in your first sentence.

:lamo...the old "race card" canard.
NEWSFLASH: Only clueless, right-wing white guys use terms like "race card". Raising the obvious likely issue of your race as a factor in your ignorant, bigoted views about African-American voters, along with the sense of entitlement you feel about sharing them, isn't "playing the race card". It's RESPONDING to ignorant, "race card" rhetoric from an obvious bigot (or a fool).

Substance of the issue? The substance of the issue has nothing to do with my race.

Nonsense. Your views are ABSOLUTELY relevant to your race. After all, the ONLY faction of the American electorate in which a large majority shares your views...is the conservative white male minority. So it's not hard to make an intelligent guess about your identity. Apparently, what bothers you is that I pegged you so accurately in my previous remarks. Get over it, snowflake.

And nothing you say following your bigotry deserves to be debated. Why? Because nothing rational can be expected to follow your irrational bigotry.

:lamo
At best, you're lying to yourself. At worst, you're just another message board lightweight who doesn't have the mental capacity (or the "stones") to defend your own empty-headed, ignorant, clueless, talk-radio-inspired views. Let's be clear. If you had the chops to rebut ANYTHING I've said, you'd have done so by now. But you can't, because you're wrong...and you're weak.

BOTTOM LINE: You claimed that "Lynching" was "in the Democratic Platform". That was a LIE. You know it, but you can't admit it because doing so would discredit your original supposition about the motivations of African-American voters. And if there is one thing that is certain, it's that you and your ilk do NOT take well to being corrected and "outed" for being ignorant and shallow, isn't that right?

 

[ultmd]

I actually did provide an argument. I’ll keep pointing out that liberals here simply make **** up. They just make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims.

Wow. Your entitlement issues are really something to observe. Of course, we ALL understand that YOU are the one who got caught "making **** up", don't we? YOU are the one who made the moronic declarative statement about Democrats having "lynching" in the party platform....and that African-Americans voted for Democrats who promoted lynchings. You've been challenged to support those assertions, and have RUN AWAY from that challenge. And, of course, we ALL can see that you keep whining, but have yet to challenge even ONE argument offered by your opposition in this thread.

Yes let’s pretend that Democrats did not fillibuster federal anti-lynching laws. Let’s pretend that the majority party did not reject platform amendments condemning the KKK.

Come on, now. You're pretending to be stupid, and I don't believe you are. When in doubt, or confused, CONTEXT is always your friend. The reality is that the Senate had about 70 Democrats back in the mid-1930's. The GOPers were all but irrelevant at that time. NORTHERN Democrats wrote the bill and passed it through the House. SOUTHERN Democrats filibustered it. Party ID meant nothing. The key was IDEOLOGY. CONSERVATIVES opposed the anti-lynching bills, while LIBERALS supported them. How many times must the FACTS be made clear to you, before you stop your lying and cherry-picking, huh?

Was it actually written in the platform? Like it needs to be.

:lamo
You're the message board Historian who told that BOLD-FACED LIE, and then stood by it. You lied. Stop passing the buck. Stop blaming others. Stop whining about being mocked for your ignorance. Admit it, and move on.

The facts still remain despite hyperbole, black people were voting Democrat before the Democrats pretended to give up their racism.

:lamo
Wow, PROJECT much? The only hyperbole we've seen, has come from your finger tips. You either don't know, or don't care about your own American history. That's because you're a blind ideologue. Clearly.

And not a bit of that has to do with me being white.

Wrong. Your racial ignorance and entitlement, as reflected by your stated opinions about African-American voters....is absolutely due to a toxic mixture of your ideology and your race. There is no doubt about that.

 

[Eriech]

A better question is why do blacks vote Democrat? Are all dependant on redistribution?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

A better question is why do blacks vote Democrat? Are all dependant on redistribution?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Na, stealing from the poor to give to the rich is a Republican thing.

 

[Eriech]

By definition the poor have nothing to take. Are you saying there are some entitled to what I earn and that by keeping more of what I earn it is stealing?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[RealityNow]

By definition the poor have nothing to take. Are you saying there are some entitled to what I earn and that by keeping more of what I earn it is stealing?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

What are you talking about... the well to do and wealthy have been taking your tax money for decades upon decades, building up their community, while fighting to keep taxes low so after they have gotten what they want, by using the money poor working people pay into the tax system,and when its time to pay their fair share so... tax money can be spend in all communities, including the destitute, the poor and working poor.. they start asking for "yet, another tax break".... to assure that nothing goes to build up anything in the poor communities. All the while their communities get the best of every service and program and upkeep and improvements one can imagine.

Now, whine about that when you as conservatives whine about "my tax dollars"... You won't!!! because conservatives have been trained to worship the financially well to do! They fall in line and submit themselves to anything a wealthy white man in a suit says.

If you think they did not use that tax money, get on the bus, in your car or how ever you travel, and go look at well to do peoples communities and then go look at poor peoples communities. They don't have a balance in the level of services and infrastructure that "tax money pays for".... It's right out in the open as visual factual reality.

Go see if you find any potholes in the communities of the well to do? You don't find any!!!! Go see what grant funds build and contribute too among the well to do, many make high 5 figure income and in the range of low 6 figures, off of funds that go into grant based programs, its the degree riders who earn this level of money as heads of the grant funded programs. they give the pittance to the people, but if that same grant performs a function or service in a well to do community, the standard and quality of what they get, far exceeds anything that the poor get.... Yet, its the well to do, who have the write off that avoid paying taxes, and some of the wealthy don't pay anything when all elements are factored...

Poor communities might get street lights on one side of the street, spaced a greater distance apart. The well to do communities get street lights on both sides of the street, placed closer together. But the average conservative "whiner"... never acknowledge such things that are right before their eyes. Some rural areas, that also pay tax, might not get street lights at all...

Yet, all conservatives can do is preach the George Wallace spill... of detesting anything of tax money assisting anyone black. It's the dumbest thing ever!!! Black labor for 100's of years built up much!!! And since the elements of taxes black people have paid taxes on their earning, and no one every hear black people complain about paying taxes. One can't find a right winger who is not whining about taxes, but they won't speak up and demand that taxes are spent equally in and upon all communities..... Because they detest that thought that "all communities" includes "black communities"... so, they deny what their own community should have, just for the sake of trying to deny something to black communities....

It's why right wing politicians can hoodwink and shaft them continually and they keep coming back asking for more shafting...

 

[Eriech]

Really? You have no idea. Lol

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[SoCal]

By definition the poor have nothing to take. Are you saying there are some entitled to what I earn and that by keeping more of what I earn it is stealing?...

You should rethink your question, something along the lines of;

"Are you saying America is entitled to some of what I earn and that by illegally keeping more of what I earn is stealing?"

The answer is yes...

 

[Eriech]

You should rethink your question, something along the lines of;

"Are you saying America is entitled to some of what I earn and that by illegally keeping more of what I earn is stealing?"

The answer is yes...

Democrats thinks that they are entitled to more; they run on taking more from those who earn it so they can buy votes and amass power from those who don't. They demonize the producers and glorify the takers.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

Democrats thinks that they are entitled to more; they run on taking more from those who earn it so they can buy votes and amass power from those who don't. They demonize the producers and glorify the takers.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

You probably owe it to yourself to read something other than TownHall and Breitbart. Seriously.

Congress just passed an $867 billion farm bill. Here’s what’s in it.

THat would be with a Republican Congress and a Republican president, FYI.

 

[calamity]

I stand by my old point: Right Wing Republicans love socialism for white people. It's only when someone mentions handing things to people of color that their panties get all in a bunch.

 

[Eriech]

Did you read the article you posted?

"In a 386-47 vote, the House of Representatives Wednesday approved a bill which allocates billions of dollars in subsidies to American farmers, legalizes hemp, bolsters farmers markets and rejects stricter limits on food stamps pushed by House Republicans. President Trump is expected to soon sign it into law.

The Senate passed the legislation in an 87-to-13 vote on Tuesday."

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

Did you read the article you posted?

"In a 386-47 vote, the House of Representatives Wednesday approved a bill which allocates billions of dollars in subsidies to American farmers, legalizes hemp, bolsters farmers markets and rejects stricter limits on food stamps pushed by House Republicans. President Trump is expected to soon sign it into law.

The Senate passed the legislation in an 87-to-13 vote on Tuesday."

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

lol...like I said, Republicans passed and signed the bill.

 

[veritas1]

My initial post was based on personal experience. Many years ago I helped a Polish community center by soliciting door-to-door. I was surprised to learn that the more wealth a neighborhood was, the less they gave. The charity finally give up the upper-class area as a waist of time.

Well after looking into it just now, it seems we're both right. On a per capita basis, you're correct, cons give slightly more, but it's a misleading statistic. Cons tend to be less concerned with the greater good, giving more to people they know;

View attachment 67255020

Also;

"...Because the range of organizations and activities that are supported by tax deductible giving is very wide, it is not clear how these funds are actually used or what motives they reflect.

Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear...
...But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school..."

The bottom line is that greater someone's wealth, the less of a percentage they give;

View attachment 67255018

It's hard to read, but people earning less than 25k give 12%, people who earn (or receive in dividends), 160k give 2% of theirs's.

And you're right, government should help where help is required. But where Dems see a need, cons see a dependency...

Some wealthy people give much and some give nothing. I see where Beto gave 1/3rd of 1% to charity. Sanders gave under 1%. Kamala Harris 1.4% Gillibrand and Klobuchar under 2%. Apparently, they aren't seeing a lot of need.

 

[SoCal]

Some wealthy people give much and some give nothing. I see where Beto gave 1/3rd of 1% to charity. Sanders gave under 1%. Kamala Harris 1.4% Gillibrand and Klobuchar under 2%. Apparently, they aren't seeing a lot of need.

Although I was speaking generally about the averages of all conservatives verses all liberals, I agree. In such large groups there's a huge range from people who give nothing to Dietmar Hopp who's given the most, $1 billion.

I'm not going to spend time verifying your claims about these candidates, if true it doesn't reflect well them. It also confirms my point, the average contribution of a millionaire is 2%. Have you heard about how Trump took advantage of his charity?;

"...The complaint said the foundation engaged in “persistently illegal conduct” through “repeated and willful self-dealing transactions,” treating the charity as “little more than a checkbook” for Trump’s business interests..."

It's one thing to act like Scrooge, it's another using a charity for personal gain. So why are people surprised to find that he acts the same now?...