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.
Blacks have been voting for Democrats at high percentages (up to 90%) for at the least the last 40 years, but they have seen little improvement in their communities ( in some cases total deterioration) . In cities like Oakland, CA for example, (run by democrats) you have some of the highest high school dropout rates and crime rates in the country.
My question is, do Democrats actually care about the demographic that consistently votes for them?
Are they doing this on purpose? Because it really seems so. To go 40 years voting for a party and have little to show for it would probably make me question my voting patterns.
Wake me up when the Republicans have a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, much less an African American POTUS.
They can have those things but does it actually translate into progress and real improvements on issues for the black or community or is it simply tokenism? So far I would say no. Statistics tell a very different story for the last 40 years for blacks and its not pretty.
I don't understand the premise. You seem to be suggesting that it's up to the Democratic Party to make the lives of all black people easier. That's not how it works. People have to take responsibility for their own lives. I don't remember the Democratic Party ever telling anyone that they would take care of their every need.
They can have those things but does it actually translate into progress and real improvements on issues for the black or community or is it simply tokenism? So far I would say no. Statistics tell a very different story for the last 40 years for blacks and its not pretty.
Progress is slow. It's better now than it was in the 60s (though there is still a long way to go).
This is just another biased topic where the premise is: Democrats are bad. Republicans are good. It won't matter what any of us say. I don't believe that the OP is really interested in hearing opinions other than his own and those who agree with him.
so let me understand, do you think that money would have made it better, fix it?
that is the usual argument no?
kinda sounds like public school K12 doesnt it, the issue is always money--- never behavior, i dont think so. i think its 90% behavior 10% money.
so let me understand, do you think that money would have made it better, fix it?
that is the usual argument no?
kinda sounds like public school K12 doesnt it, the issue is always money--- never behavior, i dont think so. i think its 90% behavior 10% money.
I think what you're saying is that the quality of a neighborhood is a reflection of the quality of the people living there. I agree. The OP cites Blacks but its not because they are Black per se as there are many high quality Black neighborhoods. Also there are many White neighborhoods in poor shape.
The people in these neighborhoods are poor because they lack the intellectual capacity to produce even what they need to survive. This lack of intellect is what leads to the crime (inclucing vandalism), high school graduation rates and deterioration cited by the OP. These folks do not have the ability to carry their own water never mind police and fix up their neighborhoods. The government is already carrying them with respect to what they need to survive via welfare, food stamps, etc. Now the OP also expects the rest of us to fix up their neighborhoods, crack down on their miscreants and to somehow give them the intellectual capacity to graduate from high school.
The only thing I will give the OP as far as bringing race into the issue is that there are a larger percentage of Blacks in this situation than Whites with respect to their numbers. These folks cannot even produce what they need to survive. They must be supported by the rest of us with the ability to produce more than we need to survive. This, of course, we are doing. The only question is to what level or to what standard of living are we expected to raise them? Are we expected to lift them to the standard enjoyed by those of us who are producing more than we need to survive or is lifting them to the level of survival enough. That's the only debate.
Also in poorer neighborhoods the tax base is lower, so schools and so forth are of lower quality...so without education how can the people succeed...it's a death spiral.
Also in poorer neighborhoods the tax base is lower, so schools and so forth are of lower quality...so without education how can the people succeed...it's a death spiral.
Yeah that's true but money is not the answer there either. Its been tried many times and it never works. I've pointed out before that it takes an average IQ of around 90 to graduate from high school is one is to fully comprehend the material. The folks in these neighborhoods would have an IQ below 85. A graduation rate of around 50% is all that can be expected. Just like the neighborhoods, the quality of the schools is largely a result of the quality of the students.
- Reel
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.
It won't matter what any of us say. I don't believe that the OP is really interested in hearing opinions other than his own and those who agree with him.
