Herman Cain quotes Pokemon 2000.

[quote name='Spokker']You say that poor people are voting against their own best interests by voting for conservatives. I agree with that insomuch as we are talking about the way conservatism is practiced today. Conservatives are all about big government and handouts as much as the next politician.[/quote]
You have an extremely shallow reading of how conervatives/liberals/political parties operate. It's never been about small/big government, but about capital distribution.

At the same time, and I know you didn't say this but I'm going to, poor people and minorities are not necessarily voting in their own best interests by voting for democratic candidates. An American black or Hispanic voter does not need free-flowing immigration, affirmative action or federal dollars to thrive. It might even hurt them by taking away incentives to be the very best you can be.
Click to expand...
With the alternative of voting for conservatives who want to completely strip away any semblance of social safety nets? How the hell do you propose they pull up their bootstraps when they had every bone in their hands broken and insist they get their own materials? What do you think they can do in a system that is working completely against them?

Have you ever heard someone say that are better off on welfare than getting a job? That's just one example of what happens.
Click to expand...
And your example sucks. This is because there aren't enough jobs with living wages available in an area.

If there were a real candidate with traditional conservative ideals such as limited government and had enough sense to stay out of social issues (get the government out of marriage altogether), I'd vote for them.
Click to expand...
Just drop a "google Pr0n Raul 2012" and stop dancing around being a know-nothing libertarian.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What do you think they can do in a system that is working completely against them?[/quote]It certainly sounds bad when you put it that way, but then I think of a system working completely for them, such as California, and it's clear that this doesn't work either.

Just drop a "google Pr0n Raul 2012" and stop dancing around being a know-nothing libertarian.
Click to expand...

The other day I put in a change of party affiliation with my county registrar from Democrat to Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primary. My state requires you be a Republican to vote in the primary. It's unlikely he'll get through, but at least it'll be an interesting election if he does.

Obama vs. Any Other Republican candidate. I have to go with Obama. He only gets us into small wars. Obama vs. Ron Paul. I'd have to think about it long and hard.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And that's why it's abuse and why the system needs tweaked to focus more on being temporary assistance while helping people get back on their feet, rather than indefinite financial handouts that don't give people a lot of incentive to get off of welfare and back to gainful employment.[/QUOTE]

And things like this have definitely been tried with mixed results. One thing that has always been sort of a difficult avenue is children. There's this idea that people use children to hold the taxpayer hostage in order to get them to keep giving out those benefits. Short-term, fixing this problem would be painful, and I lament that we let it get to where it is in the first place. Those handouts for children, I think, did their fair share in destroying black fatherhood in this country. It really reduces that incentive for a father to be a part of his child's life.

A Berkeley study on the problem of welfare and black fatherlessness: calswec.berkeley.edu/calswec/LR_AA_Fathers_FINAL.doc

The child welfare system’s reliance on financial support as a marker for paternal involvement can have the unintended impact of discouraging those parenting activities which are not tied to the father’s ability to serve as breadwinner (Johnson & Bryant, 2004; Perry, 2009) and puts those fathers who are of lower socioeconomic status at a disadvantage as they seek alternate ways to provide for their children (Hamer & Marchiaro, 2002). Further, the emphasis on a class-based, financial support expectation also hinders a lower-income father’s ability to be considered fit as a custodial parent (Johnson & Bryant, 2004).
Click to expand...
I don't agree with everything here, but there is definitely a major problem.
 
Meh. You're just coming across as the typical, racist conservative now that rails against black America without understanding the realities of life in poor urban areas adn the impact of concentrated disadvantaged, criminal justice policies (especially drug laws) that take huge numbers of young males out of the community etc.

Ignore list +1.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Meh. You're just coming across as the typical, racist conservative now that rails against black America without understanding the realities of life in poor urban areas adn the impact of concentrated disadvantaged, criminal justice policies (especially drug laws) that take huge numbers of young males out of the community etc[/QUOTE]I support the decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs, but drug laws alone don't explain the astonishing representation of black men as both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Legalize drugs and you aren't necessarily liberalizing black communities, but it might help.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I support the decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs, but drug laws alone don't explain the astonishing representation of black men as both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Legalize drugs and you aren't necessarily liberalizing black communities, but it might help.[/QUOTE]

Do you know any black people?
 
Drugs are only one part of the crime problem in the inner city. In a nutshell it's concentrated disadvantage.

The inner city is just a recipe for disaster with concentrated poverty, high residential mobility (people don't give a crap about the community as it's not "home"), drugs leading to violent underground markets, disinvestment by the city, crappy schools, broken homes etc. etc.

These places have been in cycles of decline for most of the 20th century and on. It's very hard for anyone born into such conditions to succeed.

The race angle is there because the inner cities are where blacks concentrated for factory jobs after the end of slavery, and white flight led to these areas becoming mostly minority communities. Which furthered their decline due to institutionalized racism as those in power didn't give a crap about conditions in these areas as long as the violence and other problems stayed confined within these areas.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I support the decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs, but drug laws alone don't explain the astonishing representation of black men as both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Legalize drugs and you aren't necessarily liberalizing black communities, but it might help.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, if only I didn't have the flu...

But the war on drugs actually focuses on black males while serving up a healthy dose of harsher sentences. They're pulled over 7x as much as white men and are 4x less likely to have drug paraphernalia as compared to white males during those stops, yet black males enjoy disproportionate representation in our judicial and prison system. Funny how that works. It's like 90% of black men all of a sudden started turning into criminals in the 1970's!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Drugs are only one part of the crime problem in the inner city. In a nutshell it's concentrated disadvantage.[/QUOTE]

This is why I like you. Right. On. The. fucking. Head.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
But the war on drugs actually focuses on black males while serving up a healthy dose of harsher sentences. They're pulled over 7x as much as white men and are 4x less likely to have drug paraphernalia as compared to white males during those stops, yet black males enjoy disproportionate representation in our judicial and prison system. Funny how that works. It's like 90% of black men all of a sudden started turning into criminals in the 1970's![/QUOTE]
Don't urban cities tend to have more cops per capita? Don't blacks tend to live in urban areas? Don't urban areas have more crime? Don't areas with more crime have more police per capita? Could it be that in the presence of institutional racism or not that you're more likely to be caught in an urban area no matter what you are doing?

Another thing I wondered about this is that police forces are looking more representative of the general population than ever before. The LAPD, to give one example, looks a lot different from what it looked like 20 years ago. I wonder if these cops, who might have come from the blighted communities they now patrol, are even more effective because they know how the area works and what's going down there.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Which furthered their decline due to institutionalized racism[/QUOTE]Things are definitely changing, though. Compton, for example, is a city on the rise thanks to a black power structure that understands community needs and, I must admit, a slick PR campaign. There are certainly many problems to hash out, but, at the very least, black politicians running Compton have instituted their own form of institutional racism by successfully fending off any Latino political challengers in a city that is 2/3rds Latino.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/16/opinion/la-oe-0516-newton-column-compton-20110516

Today, the very practices once employed by Southern whites -- diluting the voting power of blacks, evading media inquiries, defending their political power against demographic trends -- is now the province of Compton blacks.
Click to expand...
There's a little bit of White Devil in all of us, I guess. To say that these cities are completely helpless to change and without power these days is a bit much to swallow.

When I do a search for institutional racism and Compton, most of the results are for the Compton Cookout controversy. Which do you think is a more important issue?
 
Research on racial profiling in traffic stops in specific areas (i.e. one stretch of highway, one neighborhood) tends to find that blacks aren't more likely to be pulled over than whites, but they are MUCH more likely to have their cars searched after being pulled over. Stops are fairly representative of the racial make up of drivers in an area, but searches are another matter entirely as once the stop has been made the race and appearance of the driver plays a big role in the decision of the officer to search the car or not.

And race of the officers don't matter. I've not seen any studies that find any impact of race of the officer on racial profiling. Black officers are guilty of profiling just as much as white officers are. The stereo type of the lower class black male being most likely to be involved in drugs and crime in general goes across racial lines.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Research on racial profiling in traffic stops in specific areas (i.e. one stretch of highway, one neighborhood) tends to find that blacks aren't more likely to be pulled over than whites, but they are MUCH more likely to have their cars searched after being pulled over. Stops are fairly representative of the racial make up of drivers in an area, but searches are another matter entirely as once the stop has been made the race and appearance of the driver plays a big role in the decision of the officer to search the car or not.[/QUOTE]
I'm a little skeptical of the volume of stops being proportional racially with the areas, but the study I was referencing was done a few years ago in NYC. Other than that, it seems like the studies jive with each other.

And race of the officers don't matter. I've not seen any studies that find any impact of race of the officer on racial profiling. Black officers are guilty of profiling just as much as white officers are. The stereo type of the lower class black male being most likely to be involved in drugs and crime in general goes across racial lines.
Click to expand...
This is also true and some people use that argument that it can't be racist if a black cop does it to a black suspect, but that's a stupid argument because it highlights systemic racism instead of individualistic acts of racism.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Right-o. It's not just any minority, but how could any median wage-earning person vote Republican? How could any GLBT person vote Republican?

It does, I'll admit, get trotted out mostly in terms of race - but there are plenty of other groups who do vote Republican against their own self-interests. Frequently.[/QUOTE]

Why do wealthy hollywood types vote Democrat? You think they'd presumably vote republican if it was strictly about wealth distribution.

GLBT shouldnt be voting Republican (at least not for the hardcore tea-party ideology of republicans that have taken over now), but like any group of people they don't all think the same. There's diversity of thought.
(I hear some of them don't even like to decorate) :roll:

For some median-wage earners it's probably more of the social issues that appeal rather than strictly ideas of handouts/tax structure.

Some people will vote strictly based on a canidates abortion stance and ignore any of their other positions.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
This is also true and some people use that argument that it can't be racist if a black cop does it to a black suspect, but that's a stupid argument because it highlights systemic racism instead of individualistic acts of racism.[/QUOTE]
I think they're just better cops if they came from the neighborhoods they currently patrol. Making the police force inclusive was a great idea because now you have cops that that sort of understand these areas and know what to look for.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm a little skeptical of the volume of stops being proportional racially with the areas, but the study I was referencing was done a few years ago in NYC. Other than that, it seems like the studies jive with each other.
[/QUOTE]

The big studies to look at were done by Lamberth and colleagues. They used a rolling survey methodology where researchers drove on interstates so they could code the race of drivers on the roadways, violations they saw (and race of drivers who were speeding etc.).

They found no racial difference in traffic law violations, not much difference in who got stopped, but found that 73% of those stopped AND searched were black (despite blacks only making up 13% of drivers on the section of I 95 they studied).

Now you are right that the few good studies that look at the issue on local roads within cities do find more evidence of racial bias in stops. Just common sense as police can more easily see the race of driver before stopping them on a lower speed local road than on an interstate where cars are blowing buy.

But most stuff focuses on the searches as that's where the real bias comes from and the findings of bias there are consistent, where they're mixed when looking for bias in stops.

If you get stopped by the police, 99% of the time you did something wrong. Yeah, it's problematic if an officer is letting whites get away with say rolling stops, but pulling over minorities. But it's a much bigger deal when they're mostly only searching cars with minority drivers as that's a much bigger invasion of privacy than simply being pulled over.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Why do wealthy hollywood types vote Democrat? You think they'd presumably vote republican if it was strictly about wealth distribution.
[/QUOTE]

There's a big difference between voting against your own financial interests out of concern for the greater good (need for social safety nets, help for those less fortunate than yourself etc.) and ignorantly voting against your own interests and supporting a party that works to keep your social class down and help the wealthy fat cats get even richer.

And you're right that a lot of it is just stupidity in voting for pointless social/moral issues instead of major issues like economy, defense policy etc. So really those types just get what the deserve for being so easily hoodwinked and having misguided priorities.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
They found no racial difference in traffic law violations, not much difference in who got stopped, but found that 73% of those stopped AND searched were black (despite blacks only making up 13% of drivers on the section of I 95 they studied).
[/QUOTE]
I've always wondered if this is due to a different in understanding of the constitution and your rights. This video is marketed toward blacks and Hispanics, probably in a effort to get them to assert their rights.

They wanted to search my car once when I was younger and I said no. After a few minutes I guess they thought, fuck it, and let me go. I did exactly what they said in these videos.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a stupid thing to say, just like any generalization.

or minorities voting for conservatives who want to further restrict immigration, do away with affirmative action policies, take funding away from poor urban areas etc. etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
And how is it stupid to say what I said? I, personally, don't know why someone, anyone, would vote for a group of people who do nothing but shit on them.
 
[quote name='Clak']And how is it stupid to say what I said? I, personally, don't know why someone, anyone, would vote for a group of people who do nothing but shit on them.[/QUOTE]

Because you said minorities should never vote for the right.

There are wealthy minorities out there who the policies of the right totally protect their interests.

It's always stupid to generalize anything along racial lines as that's not the only demographic factor that matters.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I've always wondered if this is due to a different in understanding of the constitution and your rights. This video is marketed toward blacks and Hispanics, probably in a effort to get them to assert their rights.

They wanted to search my car once when I was younger and I said no. After a few minutes I guess they thought, fuck it, and let me go. I did exactly what they said in these videos.[/QUOTE]

Police have broader rights to search cars. Even if you say no, they can still search it as the court has given them more powers to do warrantless searches of cars than houses since cars are mobile.

They have to be able to make the case at trial that they had probable cause that they would find evidence of illegal activity and convince the judge of that so the evidence is permissible. But they can do a warrantless search of a car even if you say no. Also, they can make you wait while they try to get a warrant if they really wanted to.

But yes, most car searches happen as people consent to them. But that's not a reason for the racial divide. I've not seen any research evidence that minorities are more likely to consent to search requests than whites. People in general don't know their rights, feel pressured to say yes when a cop asks them to do something etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because you said minorities should never vote for the right.

There are wealthy minorities out there who the policies of the right totally protect their interests.

It's always stupid to generalize anything along racial lines as that's not the only demographic factor that matters.[/QUOTE]
I'd give this one a pass because while right economic policies loosely benefit wealthy people of color(I hate using the term minorites because of deficit model bullshit), their social policies completely counteract any increased economic benefit. Systemic racism transcends class/economic lines.

Either way, intersectionality is a bitch like that.
 
For sure. But I think a lot of wealthy, conservative minorities just don't care about what happens to poor in general, including poor minorities.

As you like to put it, they have the "got mine, fuck y'all" mentality, as well as being big believers in boot strapping since they feel they made it on their own. So they're not supportive of social welfare policies anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those who "bootstrapped" it deserve to earn more money. We do help poor people in this country with a multitude of programs. Many of the bootstrappers are paying for those programs.
 
[quote name='Spokker']We do help poor people in this country with a multitude of programs.[/QUOTE]

We actually do not spend all that much money on non-elderly poor people.

Also are you aware of how silly you send when you refer to bootstrappiness?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Also are you aware of how silly you send when you refer to bootstrappiness?[/QUOTE]
Not yet, but I am aware that bootstraps and personal responsibility have become bad words in this day and age.
 
We happen to be living in the worst economy in a lifetime. I can't imagine why someone would be considered a silly ass for blaming everything on lack of person responsibility.
 
[quote name='Msut77']We happen to be living in the worst economy in a lifetime. I can't imagine why someone would be considered a silly ass for blaming everything on lack of person responsibility.[/QUOTE]
That's because they should've been responsible enough to not be in a position where they'd be effected by the worst economy in a lifetime...that and you're a prius driving stupid commie asshole socialist ACORN lover.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because you said minorities should never vote for the right.

There are wealthy minorities out there who the policies of the right totally protect their interests.

It's always stupid to generalize anything along racial lines as that's not the only demographic factor that matters.[/QUOTE]
But wealth isn't the only factor here either. And I'll stand by what I said.
 
[quote name='Clak']But wealth isn't the only factor here either. And I'll stand by what I said.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't implying that wealth is the only factor--just that race isn't the only factor as well.

If you're a wealthy minority and don't give a shit about anything but keeping as much of your money as possible, then voting for Republicans isn't counter intuitive at all. It's a 100% self-interest driven vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top