93% of Blacks vote Democrat (Chicago, percentage, bailout, amendment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they deny choice and operate without the consent of the governed, yes. How do you not know that?
You used calls to a Senator's office was proof that she wasn't listening to the voters. In 2012, Sen. Feinstein ran for reelection and got 61% of the vote. The highest proportion she has ever received. Not a very convincing example of Fascism.
Jesse Helms, Strom Thurman certainly did switch parties.
Yeah. You named 2 people.
Meanwhile over 4 million Northern Republicans moved to the South in the 1960s-70s. Several million Democrats left the South for the North and West. Look at Census data if you don't believe me.
That is why the South turned Republican. It had nothing to do with the Civil Rights laws.
Again, why would racist Democrats leave the racist Democratic Party to join the non-racist Republican Party?????
You used calls to a Senator's office was proof that she wasn't listening to the voters.
I also used the example of a LATINO TX legislator all but saying F U to his constituents. Many American voters are stupid. They vote based on race (African-Americans, the afore-mentioned 93% voted for Obama) or brainwashed political party affiliations. And then they wonder why things turn out badly.
It is a matter of fact that the most economically successful voters vote Republican while the least economically successful people vote Democrat. That should tell you quite a bit about which party supports achievement and excellence, and which party depends on oppressing the masses to retain their voter base. Currently, the least successful are a majority, by political design, so Democrats have the advantage. That means an increase in poverty, which we're seeing, and a sluggish economy because producers are penalized.
Meanwhile over 4 million Northern Republicans moved to the South in the 1960s-70s. Several million Democrats left the South for the North and West. Look at Census data if you don't believe me.
That is why the South turned Republican. It had nothing to do with the Civil Rights laws.
Again, why would racist Democrats leave the racist Democratic Party to join the non-racist Republican Party?????
They didn't because it makes no sense.
2 people switching parties proves nothing.
Perhaps because neither party is(or was) as pure or tainted as you want to believe. The truth is that Helms and Thurman left the Democratic party after their racist stands and were welcomed into the Republican party.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 15 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,537 posts, read 16,521,666 times
Reputation: 6028
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Yeah. You named 2 people.
Meanwhile over 4 million Northern Republicans moved to the South in the 1960s-70s. Several million Democrats left the South for the North and West. Look at Census data if you don't believe me.
That is why the South turned Republican. It had nothing to do with the Civil Rights laws.
Again, why would racist Democrats leave the racist Democratic Party to join the non-racist Republican Party?????
They didn't because it makes no sense.
2 people switching parties proves nothing.
you are telling me the US census tracked people by political party ?
I also used the example of a LATINO TX legislator all but saying F U to his constituents. Many American voters are stupid. They vote based on race (African-Americans, the afore-mentioned 93% voted for Obama) or brainwashed political party affiliations. And then they wonder why things turn out badly.
It is a matter of fact that the most economically successful voters vote Republican while the least economically successful people vote Democrat. That should tell you quite a bit about which party supports achievement and excellence, and which party depends on oppressing the masses to retain their voter base. Currently, the least successful are a majority, by political design, so Democrats have the advantage. That means an increase in poverty, which we're seeing, and a sluggish economy because producers are penalized.
I was in Chicago when Harold Washington ran for mayor. Suddenly the Republican Party was getting all kinds of support from Euro-Americans, I'm sure it was all about policy and not skin color.
African-Americans have supported Euro-American Democratic candidates in percentages similar to the percentages that they supported Obama. If it had been Clinton vs McCain, do you really think the percentages would have been that different among African-Americans?
There are plenty of Democratic supporters who are economically successful.
Perhaps the Republicans should figure out a message other then if you are not as successful as we are then you are parasite that doesn't take personal responsibility for your own life.
That great Republican Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote:
[Early in the century] economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. And in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.
Clearly King wasn't envisioning the present day Republican party.
I was in Chicago when Harold Washington ran for mayor. Suddenly the Republican Party was getting all kinds of support from Euro-Americans, I'm sure it was all about policy and not skin color.
African-Americans have supported Euro-American Democratic candidates in percentages similar to the percentages that they supported Obama. If it had been Clinton vs McCain, do you really think the percentages would have been that different among African-Americans?
There are plenty of Democratic supporters who are economically successful.
Perhaps the Republicans should figure out a message other then if you are not as successful as we are then you are parasite that doesn't take personal responsibility for your own life.
That great Republican Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote:
[Early in the century] economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. And in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.
Clearly King wasn't envisioning the present day Republican party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
