Chain Rection: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics

[Hector12]

Chain Reaction: Th: Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, by Thomas Byrne Edsall with Mary D. Edsall

Chain Reaction was published in 1992. It explains the decline in the New Deal Coalition that dominated American politics from the elections of 1932 to 1964.

Chain Reaction can be used to understand the elections of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and their subsequent reelections by landslides. It can also be used to understand the popularity of Donald Trump.

There were a number of reasons the New Deal Coalition died. Disappointments connected with the civil rights movement is the leading reason.

During the beginning of the civil rights movement - let's say the 1954 Brown vs Bord of Education Supreme Court Decision that found segregated schools to be unconstitutional - liberals were begrudgingly aware that Negroes tended to do poorly on mental aptitude tests, and in the class room, and that they had higher rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites. They thought that when blacks were given equal rights, they would emulate the behavior and performance of whites.

What happened instead was that white rates of crime and illegitimacy rose, and black rates rose even higher. Black intellectual performance improved little, if at all.

The civil rights legislation of the 1960's and The War on Poverty declared the same year were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more enduring increases in black social pathology.

The popular image of Negroes held by most whites was no longer that of peaceful demonstrators singing hymns as segregationists beat them up. It became one of black criminals chanting "burn baby burn," as they looted and burned stores.

Liberals did not recognize the change, and continued to talk and write as though Negroes were unoffending victims of irrational color prejudice. While most whites wanted a harsh criminal justice system, liberals continued to advocate a therapeutic approach toward criminals.

The Watergate Scandal made Democrats think they did not need to reevaluate their racial beliefs and policies. Nevertheless, most whites who in 1974 thought Nixon should resign did not wish that they had voted for George McGovern in 1972. They wished that the Republican Party would give them a candidate with Nixon's policies but without Nixon's neurotic penchant for self destruction. When the GOP offered them Ronald Reagan, they voted for him in 1980 and 1984.

I am reasonably confident that Bill Clinton read Chain Reaction. The Crime Bill he signed in 1994, which increased the severity of the criminal justice system, and the Welfare Reform Bill he signed in 1996, which made cuts in welfare, indicate that he got the message.

Unfortunately, the sympathy many liberals displayed for the George Floyd riots of 2020 indicates that many of them still have not learned. That is why Donald Trump has a good chance of being reelected.

 

[JoeB131]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem with your premise is that it assumes white people started abandoning the Democratic Party after the civil rights movement. That is simply not true.

The "New Deal Coalition" you mentioned only existed for FDR's four terms. When the economy improved, white people returned to voting Republican.

How do you think Eisenhower got elected twice? Or Tricky Dick got within a hair of beating JFK? Because white people overwhelmingly voted for them. You could also make the argument that the white majority voted against Harry Truman in 1948, but split their vote between Strom Thurmond and Thomas Dewey.

The only "outlier" in your data would be 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and lamented, "I've lost the South for a Generation". (Supposedly).

But 1964 was indeed an outlier. Republicans completely shit the bed nominating Barry "Deep Down You Know He's Nuts" Goldwater. Five Southern States voted for him because they disliked LBJ, but that was about it. It should also be pointed out that this was the first election where Black COULD vote in large numbers, and it turned out very well for the Democrats.

Now, moving on to 1968. Were racial concerns about the Civil Rights movement a factor in white people acting awfully? Sure it was. So was the Vietnam War. So was the women's rights movement. But at the end of the day, Tricky Dick only got 43% of the vote against an indecisive Hubert Humphry, with George Wallace taking a huge chuck of the Inbred Racist vote in the south.

1972- Sorry, man, that election doesn't really prove your case, either. The Democrats truly shit the bed on that election in nominating McGovern. A guy whose own running mate called him the Candidate of "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" and lost the Catholic vote (Nothing to do with civil rights) before he was forced off the ticket for getting electric shock therapy. (Ironically, Amnesty was granted, and Abortion was legalized within five years of that vote.) His only issue was opposition to the Vietnam War, and Nixon cut the legs right out from under him by getting the Paris Accords signed with Hanoi.

Now we can move on to elections where we have data for. Lo and behold, you can make the argument that white people didn't vote Democratic in any of them.

But Crunching the numbers, they did okay in 1976, although Carter still needed blacks to push him over the top. They did decently in 92 and 96, but that was more because Ross Perot siphoned off white voters from the GOP candidate. Carter and Clinton both carried southern states!

Final point on these numbers: Prior to 1980, no one really counted Hispanics as a separate voting block; they were usually lumped in with whites. So the pre-1980 numbers for Democrats might have been a tad skewed. It wasn't so much that Democrats "lost" white votes in that they simply had voters calling themselves something else now.

It becomes increasingly irrelevant when the electorate is becoming less and less white. Democrats CAN win with only 40% of the white vote. The main reason why Hillary "lost" in 2016 was because black voters didn't show up for her. They remember her many slights against Obama. They remember her husband stabbed them in the back and signed draconian welfare reform. (Almost all of it got rolled back, with three Republican recessions gobsmacking people into realizing why we need a safety net.)

Final thought. Sometimes it's not about winning, it's about doing the right thing. Fixing our racism is the right thing.

 

[Hector12]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem with your premise is that it assumes white people started abandoning the Democratic Party after the civil rights movement. That is simply not true.

The "New Deal Coalition" you mentioned only existed for FDR's four terms. When the economy improved, white people returned to voting Republican.

How do you think Eisenhower got elected twice? Or Tricky Dick got within a hair of beating JFK? Because white people overwhelmingly voted for them. You could also make the argument that the white majority voted against Harry Truman in 1948, but split their vote between Strom Thurmond and Thomas Dewey.

The only "outlier" in your data would be 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and lamented, "I've lost the South for a Generation". (Supposedly).

But 1964 was indeed an outlier. Republicans completely shit the bed nominating Barry "Deep Down You Know He's Nuts" Goldwater. Five Southern States voted for him because they disliked LBJ, but that was about it. It should also be pointed out that this was the first election where Black COULD vote in large numbers, and it turned out very well for the Democrats.

Now, moving on to 1968. Were racial concerns about the Civil Rights movement a factor in white people acting awfully? Sure it was. So was the Vietnam War. So was the women's rights movement. But at the end of the day, Tricky Dick only got 43% of the vote against an indecisive Hubert Humphry, with George Wallace taking a huge chuck of the Inbred Racist vote in the south.

1972- Sorry, man, that election doesn't really prove your case, either. The Democrats truly shit the bed on that election in nominating McGovern. A guy whose own running mate called him the Candidate of "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" and lost the Catholic vote (Nothing to do with civil rights) before he was forced off the ticket for getting electric shock therapy. (Ironically, Amnesty was granted, and Abortion was legalized within five years of that vote.) His only issue was opposition to the Vietnam War, and Nixon cut the legs right out from under him by getting the Paris Accords signed with Hanoi.

Now we can move on to elections where we have data for. Lo and behold, you can make the argument that white people didn't vote Democratic in any of them.

View attachment 1007991

But Crunching the numbers, they did okay in 1976, although Carter still needed blacks to push him over the top. They did decently in 92 and 96, but that was more because Ross Perot siphoned off white voters from the GOP candidate. Carter and Clinton both carried southern states!

Final point on these numbers: Prior to 1980, no one really counted Hispanics as a separate voting block; they were usually lumped in with whites. So the pre-1980 numbers for Democrats might have been a tad skewed. It wasn't so much that Democrats "lost" white votes in that they simply had voters calling themselves something else now.

It becomes increasingly irrelevant when the electorate is becoming less and less white. Democrats CAN win with only 40% of the white vote. The main reason why Hillary "lost" in 2016 was because black voters didn't show up for her. They remember her many slights against Obama. They remember her husband stabbed them in the back and signed draconian welfare reform. (Almost all of it got rolled back, with three Republican recessions gobsmacking people into realizing why we need a safety net.)

View attachment 1007994

Final thought. Sometimes it's not about winning, it's about doing the right thing. Fixing our racism is the right thing.

The only way Eisenhower could be elected and reelected was by making it clear that he supported the basic reforms of the New Deal.

The Republican Party is divided by class, but united by race. That gives the Republicans a considerable advantage as long as they do not talk about cutting domestic spending programs that benefit whites.

The Democrat Party is a hodgepodge of groups that dislike each other. Hispanics and Negroes dislike each other. Muslims and Jews dislike each other. The well educated, well paid bicoastal professionals who have dominated the Democrat Party since the War in Vietnam view white blue collar workers with disdain and are resented in turn.

Before 1965 most Negroes were denied the ability to vote, and 90% of the U.S. population was white. Back then the Democrats dominated the United States. The Democrat Party has never recovered from the loss of Southern whites and white blue collar workers. They left because of Democrat policies toward blacks and immigrants.

 

[Hector12]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem with your premise is that it assumes white people started abandoning the Democratic Party after the civil rights movement. That is simply not true.

The "New Deal Coalition" you mentioned only existed for FDR's four terms. When the economy improved, white people returned to voting Republican.

How do you think Eisenhower got elected twice? Or Tricky Dick got within a hair of beating JFK? Because white people overwhelmingly voted for them. You could also make the argument that the white majority voted against Harry Truman in 1948, but split their vote between Strom Thurmond and Thomas Dewey.

The only "outlier" in your data would be 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and lamented, "I've lost the South for a Generation". (Supposedly).

But 1964 was indeed an outlier. Republicans completely shit the bed nominating Barry "Deep Down You Know He's Nuts" Goldwater. Five Southern States voted for him because they disliked LBJ, but that was about it. It should also be pointed out that this was the first election where Black COULD vote in large numbers, and it turned out very well for the Democrats.

Now, moving on to 1968. Were racial concerns about the Civil Rights movement a factor in white people acting awfully? Sure it was. So was the Vietnam War. So was the women's rights movement. But at the end of the day, Tricky Dick only got 43% of the vote against an indecisive Hubert Humphry, with George Wallace taking a huge chuck of the Inbred Racist vote in the south.

1972- Sorry, man, that election doesn't really prove your case, either. The Democrats truly shit the bed on that election in nominating McGovern. A guy whose own running mate called him the Candidate of "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" and lost the Catholic vote (Nothing to do with civil rights) before he was forced off the ticket for getting electric shock therapy. (Ironically, Amnesty was granted, and Abortion was legalized within five years of that vote.) His only issue was opposition to the Vietnam War, and Nixon cut the legs right out from under him by getting the Paris Accords signed with Hanoi.

Now we can move on to elections where we have data for. Lo and behold, you can make the argument that white people didn't vote Democratic in any of them.

View attachment 1007991

But Crunching the numbers, they did okay in 1976, although Carter still needed blacks to push him over the top. They did decently in 92 and 96, but that was more because Ross Perot siphoned off white voters from the GOP candidate. Carter and Clinton both carried southern states!

Final point on these numbers: Prior to 1980, no one really counted Hispanics as a separate voting block; they were usually lumped in with whites. So the pre-1980 numbers for Democrats might have been a tad skewed. It wasn't so much that Democrats "lost" white votes in that they simply had voters calling themselves something else now.

It becomes increasingly irrelevant when the electorate is becoming less and less white. Democrats CAN win with only 40% of the white vote. The main reason why Hillary "lost" in 2016 was because black voters didn't show up for her. They remember her many slights against Obama. They remember her husband stabbed them in the back and signed draconian welfare reform. (Almost all of it got rolled back, with three Republican recessions gobsmacking people into realizing why we need a safety net.)

View attachment 1007994

Final thought. Sometimes it's not about winning, it's about doing the right thing. Fixing our racism is the right thing.

The 1960 election was close because civil rights was not on the agenda.

Johnson won by a landslide because Goldwater indicated that he would repeal the basic reforms of the New Deal and provoke a war with the Soviet Union.

The 1968 election between Humphrey and Nixon was close, but most Wallace voters would have voted for Nixon.

Democrat support for the civil rights movement, and the dysfunctional black response to the laws passed to help them crippled the Democrats and led to the Republican ascendency.

 

[JoeB131]

The only way Eisenhower could be elected and reelected was by making it clear that he supported the basic reforms of the New Deal.

Actually, being a war hero helped. It wasn't just that Ike rejected rolling back the New Deal (something no Republican has ever tried, by the way, not even Ronnie Ray-gun). He also dismissed the GOP's resurgent isolationism.

Here's the big issue that pushed Ike over the top. Who Lost China. (Actually, no one lost China, the Chinese just chose communism.) So after just squeaking by in 1948, China went Communist, we were fighting a quagmire in Korea, and Joe McCarthy was telling Mr. and Mrs. America that there were commies in the Army and State Department.

The Republican Party is divided by class, but united by race. That gives the Republicans a considerable advantage as long as they do not talk about cutting domestic spending programs that benefit whites.

Which makes white people shitty, really. "Go cut that program that benefits black people, but don't cut my program!" Of course, at a certain point, Republicans realize you can't give those big tax cuts to billionaires without cutting middle-class entitlements.

The sad part is that everyone wants the government to do stuff for them, and no one wants to pay for it. This needs to change, but it won't.

The Democrat Party is a hodgepodge of groups that dislike each other. Hispanics and Negroes dislike each other. Muslims and Jews dislike each other. The well educated, well paid bicoastal professionals who have dominated the Democrat Party since the War in Vietnam view white blue collar workers with disdain and are resented in turn.

The Republicans have the same problem. Do you think the Billionaire class that funds the GOP doesn't have utter disdain for the Bible Belt? The GOP is a coalition of libertarians who want to dismantle the government and Bible Thumpers who want the government to regulate our sex lives.

Before 1965 most Negroes were denied the ability to vote, and 90% of the U.S. population was white. Back then the Democrats dominated the United States. The Democrat Party has never recovered from the loss of Southern whites and white blue collar workers. They left because of Democrat policies toward blacks and immigrants.

Um, no, they left for the other reasons I pointed out. They voted predominately Republican from 1860 to 1828, and after 1948, went right back to the Republicans. So the only time, other than that blip in 1964, that white people rejected the GOP was FDR's four terms, which had more to do with the force of FDR's personality than party alignment.

The real problem is, of course, that you have very few non-partisan voters now. You could go from LBJ winning 44 states in 1964 to Nixon winning 49 in 1972 because so much of the electorate voted for the man, not the party. That's not true today. As repulsive as Donald Trump is, 47% of the population will vote for him because he has an R behind his name, and 48% of the population will vote against him because he has an R behind his name.

Given that 70% of Hispanics and Asians vote Democratic and 90% of blacks do, white people just aren't that important anymore. They need to vote something like 65% to put a Republican over the top, and that's just not happening. The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, and that's because George W. Bush made a concerted effort to reach out to blacks and Hispanics.

That said, the Democrats REALLY SHOULD start addressing the concerns of rural white America. Hillary was really tone-deaf in telling them to learn to code.

 

[JoeB131]

The 1960 election was close because civil rights was not on the agenda.

oh, so the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was just a mirage, then?

Civil Rights Act of 1960 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's the thing. Prior to Goldwater Shitting the bed, the GOP was kind of on the right side of Civil Rights. Republicans desegregated the schools, Ike ordered troops to stand up to the Klan. It wasn't on the agenda because most sane people realized that we needed change.

Johnson won by a landslide because Goldwater indicated that he would repeal the basic reforms of the New Deal and provoke a war with the Soviet Union.

The fact that Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a lot to do with it to. You see, before then, the Republicans didn't do horribly with black folks. Nixon got 35% of the black vote in 1960 (those blacks who were allowed to vote, anyway.)

The 1968 election between Humphrey and Nixon was close, but most Wallace voters would have voted for Nixon.

Would they, though? In 1968, the GOP didn't really have grassroots machinery in the south. Take Wallace out, Humphrey probably would have done better. It's why Carter carried most of the South in 1976, not because he was a segregationist throwback, but because he had strong organization in the South.

Democrat support for the civil rights movement, and the dysfunctional black response to the laws passed to help them crippled the Democrats and led to the Republican ascendency.

What ascendency, bud? The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988. And they had to scare the hell out of the country to do it.

 

[Hector12]

Republicans were more supportive of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 than Democrats.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was the reason he won 1972 by a landslide.

Reagan began his 1980 campaign in a town in Mississippi where three civil rights activists had earlier been murdered. He gave a speech on states' rights. The Welfare Queen of Chicago never existed, but everyone knew what race she belonged to, and talking about her resonated because of widespread hostility to black welfare mothers.

Everyone knew the race of “some strapping young buck ahead of you to buy a T-bone steak” while “you were waiting in line to buy hamburger.”

On page 162 of Chain Reaction the Edsall's wrote, "Among blacks, food stamps are a source for over a quarter of the population, and welfare provides income for more than a seventh of all black households."

By the way, I voted twice for Carter. I voted twice against Nixon, and twice against Reagan.

 

[Hector12]

Final thought. Sometimes it's not about winning, it's about doing the right thing. Fixing our racism is the right thing.

Tell Negroes that if they begin to behave and perform as well as the yellow "people of color," racism will decline dramatically.

 

[Hector12]

JoeB131, Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1866, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1991.

Civil right acts in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1964 I had a conservative friend who supported the election of Barry Goldwater when I supported the reelection of Lyndon Johnson. I am still in touch with that friend.

Both of us supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

My friend asked me a question, "Why has it not been necessary to pass a law to prevent discrimination against Orientals and Jews?"

I could not answer that question. When Orientals and Jews migrated to the United States, most were destitute. They faced persecution and discrimination. They overcame it because the vast majority of them behaved and performed well. Now Orientals and Jews are usually more successful and prosperous than white Gentiles.

Why has it been necessary for the Federal Government to continually force people to be nice to Negroes?

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan openly appealed to hostility against Negroes. And it worked. Both men were reelected by landslides. Why did it work? Are blacks unoffending victims of irrational color prejudice, who like Jews and Orientals behave and perform at least as well as white Gentiles?

 

[JoeB131]

Republicans were more supportive of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 than Democrats.

Yes, they were, but only if you leave out the Southern Inbreds. The Southern Inbreds migrated to the GOP, and the GOP welcomed them with open arms.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was the reason he won 1972 by a landslide.

Well, not entirely. How did the Southern Strategy help him win Washington State or Minnesota or New York? (States he didn't take in 1968 running against the feckless Hubert Humphrey.) The real problem was that from 1968 to 1988, the Democrats ran some TRULY AWFUL candidates, who were weak on National Defense at a time when the USSR was breathing down our necks. The hippies had essentially taken over the party.

I did vote for Ronnie Ray-gun in 1980. It was my first election. I did so because I looked at how ineffective Carter was in dealing with the USSR and Iran. Not because I cared about "welfare queens".

Reagan began his 1980 campaign in a town in Mississippi where three civil rights activists had earlier been murdered. He gave a speech on states' rights. The Welfare Queen of Chicago never existed, but everyone knew what race she belonged to, and talking about her resonated because of widespread hostility to black welfare mothers.

If she didn't exist, how could she belong to a race? The actual "Welare Queen" was named Linda Taylor, a woman of mixed race who used fake identities to cheat welfare at a time when we didn't have a good system for detecting identity theft.



It should also be pointed out that Reagan trotted out that dog and pony show in the 1976 campaign, and Republican voters were turned off by it. He lost to Jerry Ford, who went on to lose to Carter.

Everyone knew the race of “some strapping young buck ahead of you to buy a T-bone steak” while “you were waiting in line to buy hamburger.”

That person didn't exist, and by his 1980 campaign, Reagan had largely dropped that kind of inflammatory rhetoric.

Now, Food stamps were rife with fraud. When I was in the service, there was another NCO who would buy food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar, and he usually had a huge wad of them. He later came up hot on a piss test and was discharged.

On page 162 of Chain Reaction the Edsall's wrote, "Among blacks, food stamps are a source for over a quarter of the population, and welfare provides income for more than a seventh of all black households."

Yes, another crank using false statistics. The reality is that most people on food stamps are white, and that 40% of households getting SNAP have at least one family member with a job.

Food stamp rates vary racially - The Chicago Reporter

The news: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People criticized presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for saying that African-American communities should “demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” Behind the news: Nationally, far more white people participate in...

www.chicagoreporter.com

On the national level, white people make up 48.3 percent of the program’s participants compared with 29.7 percent for African Americans.

Most Working-Age SNAP Participants Work, But Often in Unstable Jobs | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

While two-thirds of participants are children, elderly, and people with disabilities, SNAP also helps workers, both to supplement low wages and support them when they are between jobs.

www.cbpp.org

By the way, I voted twice for Carter. I voted twice against Nixon, and twice against Reagan.

Sure you did, buddy. Did it involve a blue box, because I still peg you as being in your 20s.

Tell Negroes that if they begin to behave and perform as well as the yellow "people of color," racism will decline dramatically.

I have made that argument to IM2 and others, but let's be blunt, the black experience isn't anywhere near the same as the Asian Experience.

Asians were never slaves (unless you count Chinese-American "Coolie" laborers, and that's a stretch.) They never encountered Jim Crow, and Miscegenation laws were never really applied to them. (If you came back from Korea with a war bride, no one treated you different.) It should also be pointed out that 70% of Asian-Americans weren't born here. They are first generation immigrants.

 

[Hector12]

Asians were never slaves (unless you count Chinese-American "Coolie" laborers, and that's a stretch.) They never encountered Jim Crow, and Miscegenation laws were never really applied to them. (If you came back from Korea with a war bride, no one treated you different.) It should also be pointed out that 70% of Asian-Americans weren't born here. They are first generation immigrants.

Slavery ended a long time ago.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131, Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1866, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1991.

Yes, they did. So let's look at some of that history.

After Grant, Republicans realized that they no longer needed blacks to win elections, so they largely forgot about Civil Rights, gave up on reconstruction, and let the South impose Jim Crow and they left it alone for 80 years. Ike supported civil rights laws in 1957 and 1960 because he was a generally decent guy. (No pun intended.)

64 and 68, the GOP opposed Civil Rights laws, and the only reason why they half-heartedly got behind the 1991 law was that the national media managed to hang David Duke around George H. Bush's neck.

My friend asked me a question, "Why has it not been necessary to pass a law to prevent discrimination against Orientals and Jews?"

I could not answer that question. When Orientals and Jews migrated to the United States, most were destitute. They faced persecution and discrimination. They overcame it because the vast majority of them behaved and performed well. Now Orientals and Jews are usually more successful and prosperous than white Gentiles.

So imaginary you was stupid back then when you had an imaginary conversation. There really weren't all that many Asian Americans in the country in 1964. They were only 1.5% of the population, and back then, they still counted South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) as "white" for some reason.

As for Jews. Jews are white, and they get some of that yummy white privilege just like the rest of the white people. You really can't claim discrimination when you have to announce what you are before people form an opinion. Of course, they have been very successful in cheating the goyim at every turn, which is why they are so loved on College Campuses right now.

Why has it been necessary for the Federal Government to continually force people to be nice to Negroes?

You mean why has the government tried to half-heartedly undo 400 years of racial discrimination Jews and Asians never encountered?

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan openly appealed to hostility against Negroes. And it worked. Both men were reelected by landslides. Why did it work? Are blacks unoffending victims of irrational color prejudice, who like Jews and Orientals behave and perform at least as well as white Gentiles?

Again, Ronald Reagan softened his rhetoric in 1980, even made a half-ass attempt to appeal to blacks. (His visit to the South Bronx, where they practically ran him out, was amusing.) But if you had been around back then, you'd know the reason why Reagan won was because Jimmy Carter had fucked up the economy, the Soviets were flipping countries all over the world, Iran was holding our people hostage with no consequences. (It also didn't help that John Anderson split the liberal vote in 1980.) By 1984, Reagan was the country's jovial Uncle.

When Democrats finally purged the hippies, they started winning elections again.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery ended a long time ago.

Not as long as you think. You need to look up "Debt Peonage". It was how the Inbreds got around the 13th Amendment. Essentially, you'd arrest a black person for a petty offense such as walking along the railroad tracks trying to head north for some of those sweet industrial jobs. (Yes, that was actually a crime at one time.) You would then sell his debt to a private concern that he would have to work off, but surprise, they owner would then add the cost of room and board and food so the person would never get ahead of his debt. This wonderful video explains the practice in detail.



It wasn't ended until 1942, and only then because the US realized we really couldn't rag on the Axis Powers for concentration camps when we were doing something almost as bad. One could even argue that prison labor today is a continuation of the practice.

 

[JoeB131]

The real true story of the Welfare Queen. She wasn't black!

Linda Taylor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Taylor was born to Lydia Mooney White in Golddust, Tennessee, a few months after White moved there from Summit, Alabama. Although no birth certificate was issued, biographer Josh Levin estimates, based on other details provided by Taylor's relatives, that the birth probably occurred in January 1926.[4] At birth she was named Martha Louise White. In October 1926, Lydia White married Joseph Jackson Miller, and subsequent United States Census records listed "Martha Louise Miller" as their daughter.[2][5] The identity of Taylor's biological father is uncertain. In census records and court testimony, her relatives gave varying information about her parentage, but always identified her as "white". Rumors in the family indicated that her father was black, but Lydia White could have been convicted of a felony under Alabama's law against interracial relationships if she admitted this.[6]

Throughout her life, Taylor presented herself as being of various racial and ethnic identities, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish. Taylor represented herself as being many different ages, with one government official stating in 1974 that "it appears she can be any age she wishes, from the early 20s to the early 50s".[2] Although she became best known under the name Linda Taylor, news reports indicated that she used as many as 80 different names, often with false identification documents to match. Her aliases included 'Linda Bennett', 'Connie Jarvis', 'Linda Jones', 'Constance Loyd', 'Linda Lynch', 'Linda Mallexo', 'Linda Ray', 'Constance Rayne', 'Linda Sholvia', 'Linda Taylor', 'Constance Wakefield', and 'Connie Walker'. Her many identities included using the title 'Reverend' and posing as a nurse, a doctor, and a spiritual adviser who used Haitian Vodou.[2][3]

 

[Hector12]

Not as long as you think. You need to look up "Debt Peonage". It was how the Inbreds got around the 13th Amendment. Essentially, you'd arrest a black person for a petty offense such as walking along the railroad tracks trying to head north for some of those sweet industrial jobs. (Yes, that was actually a crime at one time.) You would then sell his debt to a private concern that he would have to work off, but surprise, they owner would then add the cost of room and board and food so the person would never get ahead of his debt. This wonderful video explains the practice in detail.



It wasn't ended until 1942, and only then because the US realized we really couldn't rag on the Axis Powers for concentration camps when we were doing something almost as bad. One could even argue that prison labor today is a continuation of the practice.

How is Debt Peonage responsible for the fact that blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites and Orientals, and to have much higher crime rates?

 

[Hector12]

Sure you did, buddy. Did it involve a blue box, because I still peg you as being in your 20s.

Thank you. I wish women in their twenties thought I was that young.

 

[JoeB131]

How is Debt Peonage responsible for the fact that blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites and Orientals, and to have much higher crime rates?

Only in your opinion. Most blacks I know have a lot more sense than you do.

Thank you. I wish women in their twenties thought I was that young.

Well, if you stopped creeping on them, maybe they would, Cockroach.

 

[Hector12]

Only in your opinion. Most blacks I know have a lot more sense than you do

Race and crime in the United States​

According to the FBI 2019 Uniform Crime Report, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%...

The per-capita offending rate for African-Americans was roughly eight times higher than that of whites...

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2008, black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws, and drunkenness...

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the opposite.[57][58]

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JoeB131]

You can always tell when Cockroach is beaten, it's when he cuts and pastes the same discredited garbage he always posts.

So once again, I'm sorry Jamal stuffed you into your locker. I'm sorry that your boss paid the AA hire more and had so much contempt for you he told you about it.

 

[Hector12]

You can always tell when Cockroach is beaten, it's when he cuts and pastes the same discredited garbage he always posts.

So once again, I'm sorry Jamal stuffed you into your locker. I'm sorry that your boss paid the AA hire more and had so much contempt for you he told you about it.

How has my data about racial differences in average intelligence and crime rates been discredited?

I can tell that I have won an argument with you when you resort to insults, lies, and name calling.