Do Progressives really want to improve the lives of African Americans?

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are too many people who would rather not see race relations improve. They're definitely getting their way.

The truth of the matter is if we could rid our country of government dependents and victims, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party is in history books.

Democrats have managed to put most blacks in one or the other (or both) categories, so they continue to vote Democrat.

The worst thing for Democrats would be for race relations to improve. That's why they (on a consistent basis) keep promoting the message how racist Republicans are. You know, the Deplorable's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well the left has had 60 years to get the job done and Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit are their success stories.

So is Cleveland. We are now a population of about 350,000 whereas years ago, we were a million.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If so, what have they done which has actually accomplished this? Are African Americans any better off, relative to the population as a whole, than they were 50 years ago? Or are Progressives more concerned with feeling good about themselves?

In 1969 most African-Americans were struggling to emerge from 100 years of jim crow laws and a new republic party that was trying to put the brakes in the 1964 Civil Rights Law.

How is that so when a higher percentage of Republican representatives voted for it than Democrats, including Al Gore Senior?

 

[francoHFW]

Well the left has had 60 years to get the job done and Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit are their success stories.

So is Cleveland. We are now a population of about 350,000 whereas years ago, we were a million.

All the whites moved out to the suburbs, dingbat. Blacks are discriminated against- inner cities suck. Not enough investment in infrastructure or our people,the GOP just keeps making things more and more difficult for people, so the black do by far the worst.. That's why we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If every American was smart, they would stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans until they return to their core values instead of paying lip service to them.

That includes blacks.

When blacks do vote, they vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party because the Republican party expends a tremendous amount of energy communicating just how much they hate blacks.

Today's Republican party has nothing in common with the GOP of 1964 or 1854.

Do tell: what was the last message by the Republicans to the black community that they hate them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatives opposed civil rights. Tooth and nail. Liberals fought for civil rights. Both Democrats and Republicans, but liberal Democrats led the cause.

I was going to say, "Everyone knows that", but clearly there are some stunningly ignorant people who don't.

No wonder they ask massively stupid question like how are blacks better off than 50 years ago.

And Walter E Williams answered that.

Walter Williams: Black Self-Sabotage

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is another one of those topics where pseudocons ponder why the lazy knockout game welfare negroes won't vote for the Republicans who so clearly HATE them.

Always entertaining.

Because they forgot who set them free?


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was progressive Democrats and Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

153 Democrats and 136 Republicans in the House.

Half-truths don't cut it here

As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named the Civil Rights Act.

Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

 

[francoHFW]

If every American was smart, they would stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans until they return to their core values instead of paying lip service to them.

That includes blacks.

When blacks do vote, they vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party because the Republican party expends a tremendous amount of energy communicating just how much they hate blacks.

Today's Republican party has nothing in common with the GOP of 1964 or 1854.

Do tell: what was the last message by the Republicans to the black community that they hate them?

Tried to repeal Obamacare? All kinds of cuts in services and investment infrastructure affirmative action you name it LOL etc

 

[francoHFW]

It was progressive Democrats and Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

153 Democrats and 136 Republicans in the House.

Half-truths don't cut it here

As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named the Civil Rights Act.

Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

They were Democratic bills and it meant the disintegration of the democratic party as it had been. Then southern California Republicans Nixon and Reagan took the GOP West and conservative.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats claim "more Democrats than Republicans" voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (that passed after the others were defeated by Democrats) but Republicans claim a GREATER PERCENTAGE (the reason they were outnumbered was there were more Democrats to begin with, so if you look at PERCENTAGES then MORE Republicans voted YES proportionally!)

This phony comparison using political parties as blocs in a comparison is a blatant False Dichotomy. It presumes every member of each group (party) is identical, which is ludicrous. There is no significant political comparator in CRA '64. What there is is a regional comparator. Congresscritters from the "South" (former Confederacy) voted overwhelmingly against it (regardless of party) and those from outside the South voted overwhelmingly for it, again regardless of party.

This particular False Dichotomy gets trotted out on pages like this over and over and over and continually gets shot down for the bullshit it is, yet the turdflingers continue to toss the same turd against the same wall hoping it will stick. It's dishonest and fallacious argument whose only purpose is tribaliswt bullshit propaganda.

What's hard to fathom about this mythology is not so much that gullibles believe it, but more that they keep on trotting it out here after it's shot down in flames for the fallacy it is, as if running a busted play again and again and again will somehow make it work. Kind of like that user-generated Googly Image above in post 50 where the poster seems to believe that by generating his own fake 'facts' he can literally invent reality.

* Democrats also claim the "racist Southern whites" FLED the Democratic Party when Black leaders and interests became more prominent, and ended up joining the REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES

They were already conservatives. That's why they voted against it. See point one about assuming all members of a party are identical. That's a fatally flawed assumption. Always was, always will be.

Yes and No Pogo
I'm basically saying IF you are going to use party distinction, then if you look at the history
this can be interpreted both ways, and come out pretty even.

I totally agree with you that people are diverse even within parties.
There are Prolife Democrats who don't get counted or represented.
There are GAY Republicans who may or may not believe in same sex marriage through the govt,
some of the Conservative ones do NOT believe in implement or endorsing marriage at all, but argue to keep it separate from govt.
There are Black Republicans who believe in Reparations
and there are Black Democrats who don't. Etc. Etc.

However Pogo if we are going to organize people by political beliefs so each faction can represent themselves
under some form of organized collective govt (by district, state and national policy)
it makes sense to me to go with WHATEVER AFFILIATION people AGREE to take responsibility for.

So even if they believe in conflicting points or reforms against their current party platform,
if they AGREE to identify with that group, and take responsibility for corrections, reforms and even restitution for past abuses,
that's one way to organize people. And let THAT group, with all its "self proclaimed members" decide
how to resolve their OWN DIFFERENCES WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. that becomes the responsibility
of members WITHIN THAT GROUP (similar to letting people of a State work out their policy issues and disputes
to come out with a Statewide policy that represents all members of that STATE).

Of course there is going to be DIVERSITY within a State, and within a Party.
But as long as those members AGREE to participate in the local democratic process
and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for ensuring that State or Party platform represents THEM as well
as other people of that State/Party, why not use that structure to organize people?

If we can organize 50 States under one cohesive union and work out issues of "diversity,"
SURELY we can organize 5-20 PARTIES under one system and allow for DIVERSITY within the PARTIES.

It's a nice thought but I don't believe political parties accomplish anything. All it does is lump some quasi-random group of people together and dilute their various ideas into a vague mush. And when you have a vague mush it has no direction, and can be redefined by any outside part for any negative purpose. Which is exactly what this mythology we refer to here, tries to do.

 

[Pogo]

This phony comparison using political parties as blocs in a comparison is a blatant False Dichotomy. It presumes every member of each group (party) is identical, which is ludicrous. There is no significant political comparator in CRA '64. What there is is a regional comparator. Congresscritters from the "South" (former Confederacy) voted overwhelmingly against it (regardless of party) and those from outside the South voted overwhelmingly for it, again regardless of party.

This particular False Dichotomy gets trotted out on pages like this over and over and over and continually gets shot down for the bullshit it is, yet the turdflingers continue to toss the same turd against the same wall hoping it will stick. It's dishonest and fallacious argument whose only purpose is tribaliswt bullshit propaganda.

What's hard to fathom about this mythology is not so much that gullibles believe it, but more that they keep on trotting it out here after it's shot down in flames for the fallacy it is, as if running a busted play again and again and again will somehow make it work. Kind of like that user-generated Googly Image above in post 50 where the poster seems to believe that by generating his own fake 'facts' he can literally invent reality.

* Democrats also claim the "racist Southern whites" FLED the Democratic Party when Black leaders and interests became more prominent, and ended up joining the REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES

They were already conservatives. That's why they voted against it. See point one about assuming all members of a party are identical. That's a fatally flawed assumption. Always was, always will be.

Dafuck does that mean? That you can't find the words to appreciate the awe and wonder of my salient observations?

Without comment to the contrary I'll assume that's exactly what it means. You're welcome. Had you paid attention the last 143 times we did this you wouldn't be dumbstruck right now.

 

[jwoodie]

Had you paid attention the last 143 times we did this you wouldn't be dumbstruck right now.

 

[otto105]

If so, what have they done which has actually accomplished this? Are African Americans any better off, relative to the population as a whole, than they were 50 years ago? Or are Progressives more concerned with feeling good about themselves?

In 1969 most African-Americans were struggling to emerge from 100 years of jim crow laws and a new republic party that was trying to put the brakes in the 1964 Civil Rights Law.

How is that so when a higher percentage of Republican representatives voted for it than Democrats, including Al Gore Senior?

Explain nixon....and that darn Southern Strategy which turned the gop into a dixiecrat party.

 

[otto105]

How about a rhetorical answer?

View attachment 262151

And those Democratic policies were.....

 

[jwoodie]

And those Democratic policies were.....

...Aid to Families with Dependent (fatherless) Children. This rewarded young unmarried women with free housing, food, medical care and cash if they got pregnant, often a step up in their living standard. Why bother getting a job or getting married?

 

[Likkmee]

Well. Since they refer to themselves as ' African" first, maybe they should ask Africa for help ?