What can republicans do for blacks?

[Misty]

"...Ideology makes men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation." Deleuze / Guattari

You know you have succeeded when black is white and white is black. The man reminds one of the apologetics of victims of all sort. It is either I deserve this treatment or the treatment means something else. Human psychology is fascinating and bizarre.

"The White Man's Party"

"....Hardcore racism showed white supremacy in disquieting detail. In contrast, the new soft porn racism hid any direct references to race, even as it continued to trade on racial stimulation. As a contemporary of Wallace marveled, "he can use all the other issues - law and order, running your own schools, protecting property rights - and never mention race. But people will know he's telling them 'a ******'s trying to get your job, trying to move into your neighborhood.' What Wallace is doing is talking to them in a kind of shorthand, a kind of code.?"

Finally, a third bolt of lightening struck Wallace: he could be the one! The governor's mansion in Montgomery need not represent his final destination. He could ride the train of revamped race-baiting all the way to the White House. Wallace ran for president as a third- party candidate in 1964, and then again in 1968, 1972, and 1976. It's his 1968 campaign that most concerns us, for there Wallace ran against a consummate politician who was quick to appreciate, and adopt, Wallace's refashioned racial demagoguery: Richard Nixon. We'll turn to the Wallace-Nixon race soon, but first, another set of weathered bones must be excavated-the remains of Barry Goldwater.

• THE RISE OF RACIALLY IDENTIFIED PARTIES

The Republican Party today, in its voters and in its elected officials, is almost all white. But it wasn't always like that. Indeed, in the decades immediately before 1964, neither party was racially identified in the eyes of the American public. Even as the Democratic Party on the national level increasingly embraced civil rights, partly as a way to capture the growing political power of blacks who had migrated to Northern cities, Southern Democrats-like George Wallace remained staunch defenders of Jim Crow. Meanwhile, among Republicans, the racial antipathies of the rightwing found little favor among many party leaders." To take an important example, Brown and its desegregation imperative were backed by Republicans: Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote the opinion, was a Republican, and the first troops ordered into the South in 1957 to protect black students attempting to integrate a white school were sent there by the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower and his vice president, Richard Nixon. Reflecting the roughly equal commitment of both parties to racial progress, even as late as 1962, the public perceived Republicans and Democrats to be similarly committed to racial justice. In that year, when asked which party "is more likely to see that Negroes get fair treatment in jobs and housing:' 22.7 percent of the public said Democrats and 21.3 percent said Republicans, while over half could perceive no difference between the two.

"The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party." What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding,. Goldwater affected a cowboy's rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man's disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself though, was no racial throwback.' For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, "We're not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.?"

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a "Southern Strategy" in the context of repudiating it." By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: "A good many, perhaps a majority of the party's leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man's Party. 'Remember: one astute party worker said quietly ... 'this isn't South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country,"?" The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become "the White Man's Party." p17-18 'Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class' by Ian Haney López, Oxford

The book is about today and how we got to today. But history and even reality eludes the right wing in America. Check it out learn a bit.

Funny how the "WHite Man's" party only gets about 60% of the white vote.

Meanwhile the Dems get 95% of the Black VOte, and 70% of the Hispanic vote.

It's hard to compete with here is free everything.

 

[amrchaos]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Maybe they can free them from slavery.

Describe the "slavery" you are talking about.

You know you can be a slave and keep 100% of the product of your labor. Some slaves existed purely at the leisure of their owners. Hence, there is no percentage--a slave at 100% and a slave at 0%.

 

[Misty]

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Maybe they can free them from slavery.

Describe the "slavery" you are talking about.

You know you can be a slave and keep 100% of the product of your labor. Some slaves existed purely at the leisure of their owners. Hence, there is no percentage--a slave at 100% and a slave at 0%.

No one is a slave if they are happy.

 

[amrchaos]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Why does anyone have to do anything for anyone. Do for yourself. That's the only way to be truly free.

As an individual--that is okay for you to think that way. It is healthy if you are truly independent and self-sufficient.

But if represented a political party--You want my vote but you are telling me to F### Off? There is a joke here, right? I have an idea, try electing yourself!

 

[NYcarbineer]

As soon as he came off with the worn out nonsense about Democrats of 100 years ago being the racists I turned it off.

 

[Misty]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Why does anyone have to do anything for anyone. Do for yourself. That's the only way to be truly free.

As an individual--that is okay for you to think that way. It is healthy if you are truly independent and self-sufficient.

But if represented a political party--You want my vote but you are telling me to F### Off? There is a joke here, right? I have an idea, try electing yourself!

Don't depend on the government to fulfill your life. I'm happy no matter who is in charge because none of these idiots will ever define my life.

 

[Correll]

As soon as he came off with the worn out nonsense about Democrats of 100 years ago being the racists I turned it off.

How much of a bonus do you think blacks should get for having black skin in college admissions to Harvard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the GOP wants black votes,

they can start by telling black American workers, who are disproportionately unionized workers,

how busting their unions is going to make their lives better.

they can go on by telling black Americans, who are disproportionately low income, how taking away their Medicaid is going to make their lives better.

How about that for starters?

 

[Meathead]

Funny how the "WHite Man's" party only gets about 60% of the white vote.

Meanwhile the Dems get 95% of the Black VOte, and 70% of the Hispanic vote.

The GOP has to do better with Hispanics. Most of them don't mind working.

 

[Correll]

If the GOP wants black votes,

they can start by telling black American workers, who are disproportionately unionized workers,

how busting their unions is going to make their lives better.

they can go on by telling black Americans, who are disproportionately low income, how taking away their Medicaid is going to make their lives better.

How about that for starters?

We could try pointing out that bringing in cheap Third World labor is a big part of how Unions have been neutered. Trump is addressing that.

We could also point out, as Trump is doing, that crappy Trade policies are also a big part of why manufacturing jobs have declined and not had rising wages.

How's that for starters?

 

[Correll]

Funny how the "WHite Man's" party only gets about 60% of the white vote.

Meanwhile the Dems get 95% of the Black VOte, and 70% of the Hispanic vote.

The GOP has to do better with Hispanics. Most of them don't mind working.

If they interpret being anti-immigration as being anti-hispanic then the only way to appeal to them is to betray American Interests.

 

[Boss]

All I heard is "Stop listening to the Democrats" and a strange argument as to why Republicans don't tell Blacks what they can do(Because Blacks say they can't do anything? That is called a challenge by a group, not a command!)

If that's all you heard, you either weren't listening or you're cherry picking.

It's a little of both.

He doesn't want to talk about why blacks need republicans to help them.

For 80 years or more, they've followed the Democrats who are supposed to be helping them. You would think they would have been helped by now. That they wouldn't be needing republicans to help them. But no, the plans haven't worked and now they turn to republicans and want to know what republicans can do to help.

Apparently, armchair thinks that Republicans ought to try and out-do the democrats with plans that don't work and don't help? Yes... that's a genius plan... let's have a double-scoop of shit that don't work!

 

[Wildman]

What can republicans do for blacks?

why don't they ever try doing something for themselves, not always demanding freebies form the hard working honest Conservatives who pay taxes to this corrupt regime who then give it to the lazy corrupt thugs.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

If the GOP wants black votes,

they can start by telling black American workers, who are disproportionately unionized workers,

how busting their unions is going to make their lives better.

they can go on by telling black Americans, who are disproportionately low income, how taking away their Medicaid is going to make their lives better.

How about that for starters?

Might go down better than calling them lazy thugs who are part of the 47% that only wants free stuff and who deserve to be shot on sight because they refuse to respect white authority....

 

[Rotagilla]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

except in the border states, and the 2 states in the union that still held slaves...and in new orleans (for some reason).

the "emancipation proclamation" was a fraud and didn't legally free any slaves in the south. The south was a sovereign nation and "proclamations" by foreign presidents carry no weight.

 

[LOki]

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Maybe they can free them from slavery.

Describe the "slavery" you are talking about.

You know you can be a slave and keep 100% of the product of your labor.

Sure. That's beside the point.

Some slaves existed purely at the leisure of their owners.

So? Not in contention. Beside the point. Again.

Hence, there is no percentage--a slave at 100% and a slave at 0%.

Undistributed Middle.

 

[LOki]

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Maybe they can free them from slavery.

RONG!

Describe the "slavery" you are talking about.

You know you can be a slave and keep 100% of the product of your labor. Some slaves existed purely at the leisure of their owners. Hence, there is no percentage--a slave at 100% and a slave at 0%.

No one is a slave if they are happy.

 

[amrchaos]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Why does anyone have to do anything for anyone. Do for yourself. That's the only way to be truly free.

As an individual--that is okay for you to think that way. It is healthy if you are truly independent and self-sufficient.

But if represented a political party--You want my vote but you are telling me to F### Off? There is a joke here, right? I have an idea, try electing yourself!

All I heard is "Stop listening to the Democrats" and a strange argument as to why Republicans don't tell Blacks what they can do(Because Blacks say they can't do anything? That is called a challenge by a group, not a command!)

If that's all you heard, you either weren't listening or you're cherry picking.

Like liberal programming in public schools? The voucher system to escape it? The best private schools ask for more than what is in those vouchers, also, and this is the truth, the best private schools endorse religion.

So your kids are getting programmed either way. Either they become liberal, or they become a cultist.

I prefer my kids to being programmed liberal, at least I know they have a very good chance to grow out of it!!

Giving away free education obviously destroys the market for cheaper private education.

Vouchers, if not sabotaged, should grow that market. In the short term is would put private schools in the reach of more middle class families.

The vast majority of the population identifies as Christian. THe vast majority of the market would not see that as a problem.

1) Actually it does not. If it did, you best schools would not be private(at least, before the voucher system in Florida)

2)The result in Florida was not better quality private schools, just more unregulated schools. Not one having to submit to the requirements placed on public..Yes, there are even a few "teenage-sitting" facilities that does attempt to provide any form of education.

3)I said "religious" not specifically Christian. Also, understand, not every Christian is found of Catholic teaching. Jews do not want their indoctrinated in Christianity(Christians do not want their kids indoctrinated in Judaism) Plus there is a whole plethora of other religious practice that tends to make this remark a little callous in tone.

Add in the fact that most school districts have one or two such institutions that is close enough to attend, and one can quickly see that the private choice can leads to real and permanent indoctrination. Probably in the wrongdenomination for Christians, wrong religion for non-Christians.

 

[Misty]

What can republicans do for blacks?

Free them from slavery.

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Why does anyone have to do anything for anyone. Do for yourself. That's the only way to be truly free.

As an individual--that is okay for you to think that way. It is healthy if you are truly independent and self-sufficient.

But if represented a political party--You want my vote but you are telling me to F### Off? There is a joke here, right? I have an idea, try electing yourself!

All I heard is "Stop listening to the Democrats" and a strange argument as to why Republicans don't tell Blacks what they can do(Because Blacks say they can't do anything? That is called a challenge by a group, not a command!)

If that's all you heard, you either weren't listening or you're cherry picking.

Like liberal programming in public schools? The voucher system to escape it? The best private schools ask for more than what is in those vouchers, also, and this is the truth, the best private schools endorse religion.

So your kids are getting programmed either way. Either they become liberal, or they become a cultist.

I prefer my kids to being programmed liberal, at least I know they have a very good chance to grow out of it!!

Giving away free education obviously destroys the market for cheaper private education.

Vouchers, if not sabotaged, should grow that market. In the short term is would put private schools in the reach of more middle class families.

The vast majority of the population identifies as Christian. THe vast majority of the market would not see that as a problem.

1) Actually it does not. If it did, you best schools would not be private(at least, before the voucher system in Florida)

2)The result in Florida was not better quality private schools, just more unregulated schools. Not one having to submit to the requirements placed on public..Yes, there are even a few "teenage-sitting" facilities that does attempt to provide any form of education.

3)I said "religious" not specifically Christian. Also, understand, not every Christian is found of Catholic teaching. Jews do not want their indoctrinated in Christianity(Christians do not want their kids indoctrinated in Judaism) Plus there is a whole plethora of other religious practice that tends to make this remark a little callous in tone.

Add in the fact that most school districts have one or two such institutions that is close enough to attend, and one can quickly see that the private choice can leads to real and permanent indoctrination. Probably in the wrongdenomination for Christians, wrong religion for non-Christians.

That's not true. Private schools still have to adhere to government rules if they want to be accredited.

 

[amrchaos]

That happened over 100 years ago(Thanks, by the way!!)

I am asking about present day America. You know, circa 2015.

Maybe they can free them from slavery.

Describe the "slavery" you are talking about.

You know you can be a slave and keep 100% of the product of your labor.

Sure. That's beside the point.

Some slaves existed purely at the leisure of their owners.

So? Not in contention. Beside the point. Again.

Hence, there is no percentage--a slave at 100% and a slave at 0%.

Undistributed Middle.

Slavery is not defined by "How much is taken from the labor"
Slavery is based on owning/treating people like property.

Hence treating them like a beast of labor or as a Jewel makes no difference--both situations for a human being is slavery.