Originally Posted by playwrite

Various Republicans may or may not be racist.

But the one thing we know for sure about them is that they lie all the time and about everything.

Here's a good honest breakdown of the food stamp issue -

http://factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-f...d-stamp-claim/



Moreover, the above numbers are based on the cutoff point being Obama's inauguration. Only a complete ideologically-blind moron would suggest that Obama was immediately responsible for countercyclical measures automatically-initiated, BY EXISTING LAW, in response to the greatest economic contraction since the Great Depression and financial meltdown of 2008 just a month before his election and 3 months before he took office.

The GOP is made up of two types of people - the first, a vast majority of complete fricken morons predisposed to lapping up bullshit like this foodstamp crap, and then, a much smaller but very powerful group completely cynical, willing to say anything to manipulate the first group so that they can gain power and continue to line their off-shore tax havens.

I'm pretty sure, JPT, that you don't have a Mitt'ens account in the Caymans.



- yea, he just needed access to several million from the Cayman Bank ATM to buy a cup of joe when in town for groceries on vacation.

and I bet you even pay your Medicare payroll tax -



Nay, that doesn't matter when we got 46 million on food stamps that breaks out as such



Just think of the money that could be going to the Cayman bank accounts if we let 22 million kids starve!

GOP, maybe not all be racists, but certainly heartless lying greedy morons sure fill their ranks.

While I wouldn't go quite that far, I would certainly agree that every Republican candidate constantly spouts views and "solutions" with no foundation whatever in reality, about the origins of the economic crisis, whose fault it is, how it could be fixed, the origins of the federal deficit, the health care reform bill, etc., etc., etc. But I don't know whether "lying" is the best word to use. They are all postmodernists--whether 2 + 2 = 4 has ceased to be an issue for them. If the base thinks it's 5, it's 5.

I would say that at least three of the remaining candidates are hypocrites--Romney for disavowing everything he did as Governor, and Gingrich and Santorum for taking shameless advantage of Washington corrupt practices on the one hand while railing against them on the other.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

But I don't know whether "lying" is the best word to use. They are all postmodernists--whether 2 + 2 = 4 has ceased to be an issue for them. If the base thinks it's 5, it's 5.

Yes, for very large values of 2.

I'd say that we vote Democratic by such large margins because, putting it simply, the Democrats (since 1964) have taken more action to help the Black community than Republicans. We don't vote Democrat because we think Republicans are racists, Republicans just tend to be less interested in helping out minorities.

However, if you talk to someone my grandmother's age, the first thing they think of is that the Democrats ended segregation. Their thoughts are that if the party who didn't pass Civil Rights (Republican) had the say, the South would have been segregated longer. From personal experience, in 2008 during the Obama/McCain election, I heard some flat-out racist comments from people in school. And most of these comments derived from their Republican parents. I mean at 14 years old, that was the first time I've ever encountered that type of constant, direct racism. However, I judge on an individual basis, so I don't believe the whole Republican party is racist. I could tell that some of them just didn't agree with Democratic principles, which is fine. If you think that people should become successful off of their own merit, that is fine also.

But I have plenty of relatives who genuinely need extra help. My great aunts only have a middle school education because back in the 50's and 60's they lived on a farm (were given away by their parents) and needed to make money for the family they lived with. Who's going to hire them with a middle school education? They're in their late 60's now, little education, low-paying jobs all their lives as janitors and house cleaners. It's people like them who need medicaid/healthcare/food stamps, etc.

That's my problem with Newt Gingrich. They had paychecks (from 2-3 jobs) and still needed food stamps. The only reason I'm middle class is b/c my grandmother finished high school, unlike her older sisters, and worked 16-20 hour days. Plus she learned how to speak like "educated" people. My mom told me that my grandmother would watch how white people dressed and spoke and mimiced them in order to get jobs. lol Turns out the movies are pretty accurate about that one. People can work, but a low-paying job won't take a person out of poverty.

That is where the disconnect between Republicans and Blacks are. We're recieving a message where it seems that Republicans believe an education and a job is all there is to it. Well the problem with higher education is that it costs money. Good grades would help with that, but what's the situation at home? They don't go deep enough with the issues in the Black community, it's not just about jobs and paychecks.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Major issues? You are moving the goalposts now. You said "everything" before, with no qualifications.

I can't think of any controversial issue where there aren't some lies, half-truths and omissions on both sides. (And no, I'm not claiming it's "equal" on both sides.)

I narrowed it to "major issues" for there will be enough data to do the analysis and prove the outright lying.

If one can't find any lack of lying on major issues, then one can make some pretty good inferences regarding the smaller ones.

For example, I'm not in the position to say that Gingrich is currently lying to his current wife about his current infidelities. But if the analysis on "major issues" shows that he quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then....Mrs. Current Gingrich should avoid getting sick and find a good lawyer.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

As I recall, Malcolm X was a full 180 from this. Malcolm X told black America that they had to rise up for themselves because they couldn't expect the white man controlling government and industry to do it for them.

Any attempt to bring up Malcolm X in a 2012 discussion without taking into account black nationalism and separatism is transparent. Because there are two sides to the racism coin. And where one supportive of one, they are often tolerant of the other.

Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That's a good question.

Thank you. And I would still like to hear JPT's answer.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am still inclined to give the Rani the benefit of the doubt and assume she was being ironic, although she does have a way of standing up for the right wing some times.

An honest statement would run something like this:

"The country is suffering from its worst economic distress since the Great Depression. Record numbers of Americans now have to rely on food stamps. They, and we, need to put them back to work."

If one were speaking, let us say, to the NAACP (which he wasn't when he made the statement), one could add that as always, black unemployment rates, and therefore food stamp rates, are significantly higher than white ones, even though the largest number of food stamp recipients are white.

To use food stamps and black Americans in the same sentence without any reference to unemployment as a national problem is an obvious attempt to pander to the stereotype of lazy you-know-whats who would rather depend on the government than work, all the more so since they have one of their own in the White House nowadays. I believe even Romney has accused Obama of "encouraging dependency."

There's no mystery about any of this. By the way, a Martian watching the Republican debates and checking out the audience would conclude that there are almost no black people in the whole south.

If Barack Obama is the "Food Stamp President" as Newt Gingrich puts it, it is because of the "Financial Fraud President" who preceded him. I don't know how long it will be before we fully understand the extent of the devouring and waste of capital that could have better gone to creating plant and equipment that could have created jobs that could long outlast the transitory construction jobs that built housing that will never be paid for. Dubya got away with it when subprime mortgage lenders were pushing housing and the loans behind them to people who could never pay those loans off and when people got construction jobs building McMansions.

The food stamps are symptoms not so much of the failures of the workforce as they are of economic change that began with the disappearance of large numbers of semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing in the 1960s. Add to that, Reagan-era and Dubya-era tax cuts have favored giant, vertically-integrated entities over small business once the backbone of the American middle class.

Economic elites have always kept such control as they ever have through techniques of divide-and-conquer -- pitting the middle class against working people, home-owners against renters or small-scale creditors against small-scale debtors, or dividing the working class along lines of religion or ethnicity and then pitting people so divided against each other, and of course sponsoring right-wing causes. At the worst they provoke international hatreds that erupt as lucrative wars.

It may be that the southern white working class is the last to get the message that they are pawns of economic interests that merit little trust. Sure, they were insulated from the real estate scam that hit Hispanics in Florida and the Southwest hard... and they still may think tht because they are white they might get some special (and precious) privileges from the plutocratic elite -- whatever those privileges are.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If Barack Obama is the "Food Stamp President" as Newt Gingrich puts it, it is because of the "Financial Fraud President" who preceded him.

I didn't know G. W. Bush signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Silly me; all this time I thought that was Clinton.

Originally Posted by Cole94

I'd say that we vote Democratic by such large margins because, putting it simply, the Democrats (since 1964) have taken more action to help the Black community than Republicans. We don't vote Democrat because we think Republicans are racists, Republicans just tend to be less interested in helping out minorities.

However, if you talk to someone my grandmother's age, the first thing they think of is that the Democrats ended segregation. Their thoughts are that if the party who didn't pass Civil Rights (Republican) had the say, the South would have been segregated longer. From personal experience, in 2008 during the Obama/McCain election, I heard some flat-out racist comments from people in school. And most of these comments derived from their Republican parents. I mean at 14 years old, that was the first time I've ever encountered that type of constant, direct racism. However, I judge on an individual basis, so I don't believe the whole Republican party is racist. I could tell that some of them just didn't agree with Democratic principles, which is fine. If you think that people should become successful off of their own merit, that is fine also.

But I have plenty of relatives who genuinely need extra help. My great aunts only have a middle school education because back in the 50's and 60's they lived on a farm (were given away by their parents) and needed to make money for the family they lived with. Who's going to hire them with a middle school education? They're in their late 60's now, little education, low-paying jobs all their lives as janitors and house cleaners. It's people like them who need medicaid/healthcare/food stamps, etc.

That's my problem with Newt Gingrich. They had paychecks (from 2-3 jobs) and still needed food stamps. The only reason I'm middle class is b/c my grandmother finished high school, unlike her older sisters, and worked 16-20 hour days. Plus she learned how to speak like "educated" people. My mom told me that my grandmother would watch how white people dressed and spoke and mimiced them in order to get jobs. lol Turns out the movies are pretty accurate about that one. People can work, but a low-paying job won't take a person out of poverty.

That is where the disconnect between Republicans and Blacks are. We're recieving a message where it seems that Republicans believe an education and a job is all there is to it. Well the problem with higher education is that it costs money. Good grades would help with that, but what's the situation at home? They don't go deep enough with the issues in the Black community, it's not just about jobs and paychecks.

Terrific response. Pretty much what I was thinking, and you said it very well.

Welcome to the forum, Cole. And I hope you'll be eighteen by November.

Thanks, I will be 18 in May. I try not to generalize people based off the experience that I've been generalized as well. It sucks being lumped in with a negative stereotype, so judging people as individuals is a much better practice.

14.7 million in 8 years for W and 14.7 million in 3 years for Obama. I see where Newt gets his figures for this statement. I didn't see a race or creed, it was more,' Hey we got a lot of folks on Food Stamps'.

I still cannot see, either party making a dent in this figure.

Originally Posted by Cole94

Thanks, I will be 18 in May. I try not to generalize people based off the experience that I've been generalized as well. It sucks being lumped in with a negative stereotype, so judging people as individuals is a much better practice.

Yes, you did write a great post. So glad you'll be 18!!!!!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

So why do blacks actually vote Democratic by such large margins?

Well, Herman Cain put it this way: CNN

It's a combination of the Democrats being effective in pounding their message, and a longstanding (understandable in times past, but less so in the modern world) sense of "racial solidarity" in the black community. If you don't vote for Democrats, you're a "traitor to your race". There have also long been "black leaders" like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who serve as go-betweens and enforcers for the Democratic Party and its message. In short, the Democratic Party has kept black voters in line with a carrot and stick approach. "If you stick with us you'll be rewarded, if you step out of line you'll be destroyed."

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Well, Herman Cain put it this way: CNN

It's a combination of the Democrats being effective in pounding their message, and a longstanding (understandable in times past, but less so in the modern world) sense of "racial solidarity" in the black community. If you don't vote for Democrats, you're a "traitor to your race". There have also long been "black leaders" like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who serve as go-betweens and enforcers for the Democratic Party and its message. In short, the Democratic Party has kept black voters in line with a carrot and stick approach. "If you stick with us you'll be rewarded, if you step out of line you'll be destroyed."

I wasn't really interested in Herman Cain's answer. I wanted yours. But I'll assume that you're in agreement with him. In which case, you seem to be claiming that the majority of Blacks don't think about the issues; they just march blindly behind certain enforcers who'll keep them in line.

However, the voting booth is a private place. Jesse Jackson isn't peeking in at every Black voter to see who they choose. So how is he supposed to determine who are the "race traitors?"

The really interesting thing here is that, prior to the 1930s, the black vote was just as lopsided for the Republicans. A black group, might have been the NAACP or might not, in 1932 circulated a pamphlet with the headline, "Abraham Lincoln is not a candidate in this year's election," with the goal of persuading blacks to even consider NOT voting Republican.

Republicans earned African-American loyalty by freeing the slaves and by being the stalwart champions of civil rights and racial equality for decades after that. Democrats, the party of southern whites, did not, during this period. But in the 1930s, the Democrats started to earn some good karma with blacks, while for the GOP the attitude became, "What have you done for us lately?" In the 1960s, Democrats earned more points by passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. And, beginning in the 1960s, Republicans began earning negative rep by going after the white southern vote that the Democrats had cut adrift.

There was nothing irrational about African-American loyalty in any of these periods; they voted for the folks that had, and they believed would, represent their interests. When that was the Republicans, they voted Republican. Nowadays it's not. Except for rich blacks, that is. And not all of them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is true of all races, don't you think?
I mean the parts about money and the situation at home.

Yeah, definitely true. Regardless of race, if the situation at home is horrible and there's little to no income, it's all the same result. Which leads to question, why is Newt focusing his statement on Black people? Granted, proportionally, more Black people are on food stamps, but out of everyone on food stamps, whites are the majority.

Any person in poverty, regardless of race, has a need for healthy food, safe living conditions, education, and a support system. That support system needs to be a mix of themselves, family/friends, and the government. If one of those three groups is absent, it takes a toll on the other two. If government was removed from the equation, the impoverished individual and their family/friends would both need to be on board to pull one person up. It's a balancing act.

All of this is coming from personal experience in my family. When government assistance has been absent, the family helping the individual almost gets pulled back into the gutter. If not, there's strained relationships afterwards. It's mentally and/or emotionally too much to handle. Hopefully that phase has passed within my own family. There's a lot of 1st generation college students, including myself now. My parents didn't go to college and when I began entering honors and AP level classes, my parents couldn't help as much. At that point I noticed that other students in my class who were excelling had that academic support at home. Luckily, my twin and I put our heads together and can figure things out.

Originally Posted by Cole94

I'd say that we vote Democratic by such large margins because, putting it simply, the Democrats (since 1964) have taken more action to help the Black community than Republicans. We don't vote Democrat because we think Republicans are racists, Republicans just tend to be less interested in helping out minorities.

However, if you talk to someone my grandmother's age, the first thing they think of is that the Democrats ended segregation. Their thoughts are that if the party who didn't pass Civil Rights (Republican) had the say, the South would have been segregated longer.

That isn't true, though. Eisenhower (R) is the one who sent the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. The segregationists were all in the Democratic Party. What happened is that enough Democrats (including obviously Lyndon Johnson who was president at the time) finally broke with their own party and voted for it. The Republicans had always been for it.

From personal experience, in 2008 during the Obama/McCain election, I heard some flat-out racist comments from people in school. And most of these comments derived from their Republican parents. I mean at 14 years old, that was the first time I've ever encountered that type of constant, direct racism. However, I judge on an individual basis, so I don't believe the whole Republican party is racist. I could tell that some of them just didn't agree with Democratic principles, which is fine. If you think that people should become successful off of their own merit, that is fine also.

I can't speak to your personal situation, but the actions of stupid teenagers are not the best way to judge an issue.

But I have plenty of relatives who genuinely need extra help. My great aunts only have a middle school education because back in the 50's and 60's they lived on a farm (were given away by their parents) and needed to make money for the family they lived with. Who's going to hire them with a middle school education? They're in their late 60's now, little education, low-paying jobs all their lives as janitors and house cleaners. It's people like them who need medicaid/healthcare/food stamps, etc.

That's my problem with Newt Gingrich. They had paychecks (from 2-3 jobs) and still needed food stamps. The only reason I'm middle class is b/c my grandmother finished high school, unlike her older sisters, and worked 16-20 hour days. Plus she learned how to speak like "educated" people. My mom told me that my grandmother would watch how white people dressed and spoke and mimiced them in order to get jobs. lol Turns out the movies are pretty accurate about that one. People can work, but a low-paying job won't take a person out of poverty.

That is where the disconnect between Republicans and Blacks are. We're recieving a message where it seems that Republicans believe an education and a job is all there is to it. Well the problem with higher education is that it costs money. Good grades would help with that, but what's the situation at home? They don't go deep enough with the issues in the Black community, it's not just about jobs and paychecks.

The problem with the approach of the Democrats is that it improves nothing. A small handout here and there is not going to change anyone's circumstances.

The problems facing the black community at this point are no different than the problems facing society at large, they're just worse. And they're not things that can be easily fixed by government action. The biggest one of all is probably the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the disintegration of the family. There is no government program, and no amount of spending, that can fix that problem. Regardless of skin color, being born out of wedlock and raised in a single parent home is a guarantee of severe disadvantage. Black children born and raised in an intact two parent home are no worse off economically and educationally than the national average. White children born out of wedlock are as disadvantaged as black children born into the same situation. Almost the entire disparity between blacks and other groups can be explained statistically by a high out-of-wedlock birth rate.

Knowing that fact, what is the government or any politician supposed to do about it? You can't go around prosecuting people who have children without being married first.

To add to my last post, we're not exactly passing with straight A's, but we're maintaining around 3.0's. A lot of the time, I signed up for those harder classes so I had students smarter than myself to help me where my parents can't.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I wasn't really interested in Herman Cain's answer. I wanted yours. But I'll assume that you're in agreement with him. In which case, you seem to be claiming that the majority of Blacks don't think about the issues; they just march blindly behind certain enforcers who'll keep them in line.

However, the voting booth is a private place. Jesse Jackson isn't peeking in at every Black voter to see who they choose. So how is he supposed to determine who are the "race traitors?"

You have a point. The only way we know how people vote is through exit polls. It could be that many more black voters than we know are voting Republican, then lying about it to exit pollsters...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That isn't true, though. Eisenhower (R) is the one who sent the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. The segregationists were all in the Democratic Party. What happened is that enough Democrats (including obviously Lyndon Johnson who was president at the time) finally broke with their own party and voted for it. The Republicans had always been for it.

Of course, when one looks at today versus 50 years ago, virtually all the Dixiecrats who supported Jim Crow were DINOs, "Democrats in Name Only," due to their resentment of the Republican Party over the Civil War even though their politics more closely resembled Republicans. And almost all of them would be Republicans today. How many virulent white racists in the South haven't switched parties? I doubt many of them are Democrats any more, even the ones old enough to have been a Dixiecrat in the Jim Crow days.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am still inclined to give the Rani the benefit of the doubt and assume she was being ironic, although she does have a way of standing up for the right wing some times.

An honest statement would run something like this:

"The country is suffering from its worst economic distress since the Great Depression. Record numbers of Americans now have to rely on food stamps. They, and we, need to put them back to work."

If one were speaking, let us say, to the NAACP (which he wasn't when he made the statement), one could add that as always, black unemployment rates, and therefore food stamp rates, are significantly higher than white ones, even though the largest number of food stamp recipients are white.

To use food stamps and black Americans in the same sentence without any reference to unemployment as a national problem is an obvious attempt to pander to the stereotype of lazy you-know-whats who would rather depend on the government than work, all the more so since they have one of their own in the White House nowadays. I believe even Romney has accused Obama of "encouraging dependency."

There's no mystery about any of this. By the way, a Martian watching the Republican debates and checking out the audience would conclude that there are almost no black people in the whole south.

Just wanted to remind everyone that about 30 percent of food stamp families have earned income, which means someone in that family is working. About 20 percent have an elderly member and more than 25 percent have a disabled member. There is some overlap -- you could imagine a family where one member is disabled and another works. However, most people on food stamps are not sitting all day in front of the boob tube eating cheez doodles -- an awful lot of them are cleaning our offices, mowing our lawns, and bussing tables at restaurants.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Of course, when one looks at today versus 50 years ago, virtually all the Dixiecrats who supported Jim Crow were DINOs, "Democrats in Name Only," due to their resentment of the Republican Party over the Civil War even though their politics more closely resembled Republicans. And almost all of them would be Republicans today. How many virulent white racists in the South haven't switched parties? I doubt many of them are Democrats any more, even the ones old enough to have been a Dixiecrat in the Jim Crow days.

That argument is irrelevant, because times have changed and the world has moved on. The "Dixiecrats" are all dead. It is true that a few of them, like Strom Thurmond, switched parties and became Republicans. But they also renounced racism and segregation before doing so. And like I said, they're dead now anyway. Until he died a few years ago, the Democrats had a former KKK leader (Robert Byrd) in their leadership.

Bottom line, the ending of segregation is not a legitimate explanation for the move to the Democrats. They were dragged along kicking and screaming, whereas the Republicans were already in favor of it. And race is an extremely poor explanation for the South moving to the Republicans. But the Democrats will always make that argument, because it's all they have. If they couldn't accuse their opponents of racism they wouldn't know what to do.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You have a point. The only way we know how people vote is through exit polls. It could be that many more black voters than we know are voting Republican, then lying about it to exit pollsters...

If they're lying about it, then we wouldn't really know how they voted, would they?

I don't think that many people lie to exit pollsters. Now some may refuse to talk to the pollsters, which may or may not skew the results. However, I think most of these researchers are pretty sophisticated and can control for these kinds of events.

I think we need to assume that Blacks vote the way they do because they agree with more of the Democratic agenda than they do with the Republican agenda, not because they're afraid of big bad Jesse Jackson or big bad Al Sharpton. And I don't have a problem with the existence of Black Republicans such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, J. C. Watts, Michael Steele, or Herman Cain. I don't agree with them on the issues (particularly Cain), but they have a right to believe what they want and push whatever politics they want to.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think we need to assume that Blacks vote the way they do because they agree with more of the Democratic agenda than they do with the Republican agenda, not because they're afraid of big bad Jesse Jackson or big bad Al Sharpton.

It could be. And while my comments here really are more about socioeconomic class than race, I'm always skeptical of leaders who gain the most power, media attention and votes when more of their constituents are economically depressed, and whether the policies they pursue are good for the people or good for their career. If Black America rose to par with White America in terms of barometers such as income and education, Jackson and Sharpton would be largely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That isn't true, though. Eisenhower (R) is the one who sent the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. The segregationists were all in the Democratic Party. What happened is that enough Democrats (including obviously Lyndon Johnson who was president at the time) finally broke with their own party and voted for it. The Republicans had always been for it.

Oh, I'm aware of that. But older Black people I know don't know that. All they saw were those segregationists from the Democratic party turning Republican. So they turned Democrat.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I can't speak to your personal situation, but the actions of stupid teenagers are not the best way to judge an issue.

As I said, they recieved these opinions from their parents and repeated them at school. A lot of them did change their opinions two years down the road and I'm not judging the party off of what they or their parents said. Prejudice people are prejudice, not Republican or Democrat.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Regardless of skin color, being born out of wedlock and raised in a single parent home is a guarantee of severe disadvantage. Black children born and raised in an intact two parent home are no worse off economically and educationally than the national average.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The problem with the approach of the Democrats is that it improves nothing. A small handout here and there is not going to change anyone's circumstances.

I don't agree with you there. It depends on the person. If they have health problems, become unemployed, and have no healthcare, govt. healthcare would be very helpful, possibly a life-saver. If someone is a janitor making 20k with a family, food stamps help. And that's not just my personal opinion, it helps. I completely agree that the system needs to be reformed though.