Changing face of US politics

[Iriemon]

I stumbled accross this electoral map of the 1976 election from Wiki, and was surprised at the alignment of states, and how drastically different it is from this year's election 32 years later.

Image:1976 Electoral College Map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a difference, eh?

In 1976 the West coast states including California solid Republican. Texas and the rest of the Southern states solidly Democratic. The New England states more Republican.

It's almost as if the states switched parties over the last 30 years!

Why did this happen? My speculation is that the defining factos is that the Republican party moved from one associated with moderate social position to one embracing religious right issues, that sell in the South but not so well in the West and NE.

Other speculation?

 

[Kandahar]

Regional factors of individual candidates had some role. For example, Jimmy Carter did much better in the south than a generic Democrat would have done in 1976, because he was from Georgia.

But the much bigger factor is changing demographics. In 1976, California's large cities were just beginning to be associated with liberalism. More and more liberals began moving there over the subsequent decades. Similarly, the South was more sympathetic to the Democratic Party at the time because many people were still crushingly poor and the Southern economies were still largely dependent on agriculture. When that ceased to be the case, the South became more Republican.

The political map is always fluctuating as the demographics change. I predict that in a close election 30ish years from now, the map will look something like this...although I won't guess which party is red and which party is blue.

 

[Rick]

I stumbled accross this electoral map of the 1976 election from Wiki, and was surprised at the alignment of states, and how drastically different it is from this year's election 32 years later.

Image:1976 Electoral College Map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a difference, eh?

In 1976 the West coast states including California solid Republican. Texas and the rest of the Southern states solidly Democratic. The New England states more Republican.

It's almost as if the states switched parties over the last 30 years!

Why did this happen? My speculation is that the defining factos is that the Republican party moved from one associated with moderate social position to one embracing religious right issues, that sell in the South but not so well in the West and NE.

Other speculation?

There you go again! Sweeping and stupid assertions based on on one election! For god's sake, someone stop him before he posts again! :rofl

 

[obvious Child]

Why did this happen? My speculation is that the defining factos is that the Republican party moved from one associated with moderate social position to one embracing religious right issues, that sell in the South but not so well in the West and NE.

Other speculation?

Given the past 30 years, that would seem to be the case. The GOP keeps becoming further and further reliant upon religious voters.

 

[Iriemon]

Regional factors of individual candidates had some role. For example, Jimmy Carter did much better in the south than a generic Democrat would have done in 1976, because he was from Georgia.

I'm not sure Carter's background from the South is the explaining factor; an electoral map from 1960 with a New England candidate looks very familiar.

United States presidential election, 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the much bigger factor is changing demographics. In 1976, California's large cities were just beginning to be associated with liberalism. More and more liberals began moving there over the subsequent decades. Similarly, the South was more sympathetic to the Democratic Party at the time because many people were still crushingly poor and the Southern economies were still largely dependent on agriculture. When that ceased to be the case, the South became more Republican.[/quote]

Is your suggestion that poorer states lean Dem and richer states go Republican? That would make some intuitive sense; but in recent elections, weathier states (per capita) have gon Dem and poorer state Republican, generally speaking.

The political map is always fluctuating as the demographics change.

You think it is simply a matter of demographics and not related to fundamental changes in party platform?

I'm not so sure. The Reagan revolution ushered in a seismic change in the Republican party with a new emphasis on the religious right as an integral part of its platform, a shift that if anything has grown more pronounced over time. In other words, that was when the cultural war became a dominant theme in Republican politics. The southern bible belt moved into the Republican fold while the more liberal NE and West are becoming less republican.

 

[Iriemon]

Given the past 30 years, that would seem to be the case. The GOP keeps becoming further and further reliant upon religious voters.

That to me seems to be the defining factor as to why you generally have the poorer states now supporting Republican and wealthier supporting Democrat. From a financial perspective, you'd expect it to be the other way around.

 

[PeteEU]

That to me seems to be the defining factor as to why you generally have the poorer states now supporting Republican and wealthier supporting Democrat. From a financial perspective, you'd expect it to be the other way around.

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

 

[Iriemon]

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

Your argument is that the re-alignment of the parties was fundamentally a race based issue?

Interesting hypothesis. I can see the argument based on generalized demographics (e.e the South supporting the party that is generally viewed as less favorable to black interests). But I don't see the south/midwest, Republican strongholds over the passed 30 years, as being particularly more racially impacted more than other parts of the country. And while it may be true that the Democratic party policies are seen as more friendly to minority interests, any racially motivated policy issues between the parties as been very subtle, at least, since the 60s.

 

[Sir Loin]

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

God only knows where Pete gets his where “race still matters” logic, particularly following the Obama victory. Ya gotta love how he managed to take a topic and discussion on the electoral map and try to make it all about race. Those evil racist republicans!! Jesus the hackery.:roll:

 

[new coup for you]

It's more or less accepted that the South was delivered to the Republican party through Nixon's veiled racist "Southern Strategy", however that was a long time ago.

I don't think racism is what keeps the South in the Republican fold.

I'd also like to point out that racism is quite alive and well in the north, even in the metropolitan centers that are considered "bastions of liberalism".

In fact big northern cities have always been racist, it's just that the type of segregation employed was de facto, not de jure ,as in Southern states.

In Boston during integration a guy tried to stab black civil rights workers with an American flag. In Philly during the integration of a public swimming pool the whites, after being defeated, filled the pool with hundreds of broken bottles to prevent people from using it.

The Upper East side may not be racist (although that's an easy feat given that its vast wealth prevents any minorities from moving in) but the blue collar segments of Northeastern cities are all decidedly racist.

The myth of Southern racism and Northern tolerance has become a bizarre political truism, shown here by PeteEU's (a foreigner) posts.

 

[JMak]

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

Hmmm, how to square this with last week's news from Illinois, a solidly Democratic state, where one senior Democratic leaders argued that who ever replaces Obama must be black...

Notwithstanding that, though...are you kiddng me? Race doesn't matter to Republicans. Remember, we're the ones attempting to undue government-mandated racial (as well as gender) discrimination by ridding ourselves of stupid affirmative actions laws or any other law that grants preferences based on race.

Meanwhile, on the other side, it's all about being black or possessing some other minority status, to the point where we're starting to see America balkanized into these sub-groups determined only on skin color. Starting? Well, we're already there.

 

[PeteEU]

Hmmm, how to square this with last week's news from Illinois, a solidly Democratic state, where one senior Democratic leaders argued that who ever replaces Obama must be black...

Notwithstanding that, though...are you kiddng me? Race doesn't matter to Republicans. Remember, we're the ones attempting to undue government-mandated racial (as well as gender) discrimination by ridding ourselves of stupid affirmative actions laws or any other law that grants preferences based on race.

Funny. Republicans the party of denial.

Affirmative action. Why does the Republicans want to get rid of it? The party of white men, wants to get rid of the law that prevents discrimination against people of non white origin.. wonder why? How many blacks were at the Republican convention this year.. 7? How many black republican politicians and candidates are there now? Oh yea that Jindal guy.. wait he aint black, but Indian.. oh well.. close enough!

Then we have homosexuals. If Republicans dont believe that there is any discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, then why are they on the for front of trying to keep and expand discriminatory laws against homosexual peoples? What is next.. the black man or the hispanic man.. or both?

It is funny that the party that wants to get rid of racial discrimination is also the party that is almost pure one colour.

Face it, the Republican party is the party of pro discrimination... because it favours them. The more you can prevent people of colour or odd sexual habits from voting, the more votes you will get after all!

Meanwhile, on the other side, it's all about being black or possessing some other minority status, to the point where we're starting to see America balkanized into these sub-groups determined only on skin color. Starting? Well, we're already there.

Of course you are already there. You never left.

America has been (in some places) balkanized into sub-groups determined by skin colour since the 1800s when slaves were given free. There was China town, there was Little Italy and so on. Is it better than it was say 50 years ago? Sure, back then a black man in a white area would have been arrested and beaten.... at least now they only get arrested. The Asians dont solely live in China town any more so there is progress.

Yes I am generalizing big time, and America of today is not what it was in 1940 or even 1970, but it is also not all roses and racial tranquillity as the Republicans have been trying to push.

Race matters on so many aspects of American life. Race matters in legal matters, economic matters and educational matters. It matter where you live and how you live. Blacks have a higher representation in US prisons compared to their part of the population, lower education scores, and are economically worse off relatively speaking. Their health is worse, because of lack of economic means and so on (and get blamed by right wingers for the ****ty US ranking in the world health scores.. classy!) Is it better than in 1940? Sure, at least now they can piss in the same toilet as a white man, and go to schools where white children go, but dont claim that it is all rosy and perfect.

So dont come here and say that race does not matter in America and Republicans believe so and hence anti discrimination laws need to be repealed. It only shows how out of touch and frankly racist the Republican part has become over the last 30 years. Conservative values my ass.. it is all about power, and the Republicans know they cant gain any traction with black America, so they are trying everything to marginalize them.

Problem is now that they are pissing off the latino population too, which aint the smartest thing to do, since the white man is gonna be in the minoirty by 2040 in the US and the Latino population is going to be the largest portion of the population.. but hey, you have 32ish years to fix that!

 

[Harshaw]

Funny. Republicans the party of denial.

Affirmative action. Why does the Republicans want to get rid of it? The party of white men, wants to get rid of the law that prevents discrimination against people of non white origin.. wonder why? How many blacks were at the Republican convention this year.. 7? How many black republican politicians and candidates are there now? Oh yea that Jindal guy.. wait he aint black, but Indian.. oh well.. close enough!

Then we have homosexuals. If Republicans dont believe that there is any discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, then why are they on the for front of trying to keep and expand discriminatory laws against homosexual peoples? What is next.. the black man or the hispanic man.. or both?

It is funny that the party that wants to get rid of racial discrimination is also the party that is almost pure one colour.

Face it, the Republican party is the party of pro discrimination... because it favours them. The more you can prevent people of colour or odd sexual habits from voting, the more votes you will get after all!



Of course you are already there. You never left.

America has been (in some places) balkanized into sub-groups determined by skin colour since the 1800s when slaves were given free. There was China town, there was Little Italy and so on. Is it better than it was say 50 years ago? Sure, back then a black man in a white area would have been arrested and beaten.... at least now they only get arrested. The Asians dont solely live in China town any more so there is progress.

Yes I am generalizing big time, and America of today is not what it was in 1940 or even 1970, but it is also not all roses and racial tranquillity as the Republicans have been trying to push.

Race matters on so many aspects of American life. Race matters in legal matters, economic matters and educational matters. It matter where you live and how you live. Blacks have a higher representation in US prisons compared to their part of the population, lower education scores, and are economically worse off relatively speaking. Their health is worse, because of lack of economic means and so on (and get blamed by right wingers for the ****ty US ranking in the world health scores.. classy!) Is it better than in 1940? Sure, at least now they can piss in the same toilet as a white man, and go to schools where white children go, but dont claim that it is all rosy and perfect.

So dont come here and say that race does not matter in America and Republicans believe so and hence anti discrimination laws need to be repealed. It only shows how out of touch and frankly racist the Republican part has become over the last 30 years. Conservative values my ass.. it is all about power, and the Republicans know they cant gain any traction with black America, so they are trying everything to marginalize them.

Problem is now that they are pissing off the latino population too, which aint the smartest thing to do, since the white man is gonna be in the minoirty by 2040 in the US and the Latino population is going to be the largest portion of the population.. but hey, you have 32ish years to fix that!

Good grief. You know little about America and even less about the Republican party, if this post is any indication.

By the way . . . who was the first non-white European head of state?

 

[American]

I stumbled accross this electoral map of the 1976 election from Wiki, and was surprised at the alignment of states, and how drastically different it is from this year's election 32 years later.

Image:1976 Electoral College Map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a difference, eh?

In 1976 the West coast states including California solid Republican. Texas and the rest of the Southern states solidly Democratic. The New England states more Republican.

It's almost as if the states switched parties over the last 30 years!

Why did this happen? My speculation is that the defining factos is that the Republican party moved from one associated with moderate social position to one embracing religious right issues, that sell in the South but not so well in the West and NE.

Other speculation?

Yes, the neocons as you like to refer to ALL conservatives, joined the Republican Party during the Reagan administration. They brought the southern states with them.

 

[obvious Child]

That to me seems to be the defining factor as to why you generally have the poorer states now supporting Republican and wealthier supporting Democrat. From a financial perspective, you'd expect it to be the other way around.

I don't know about that. You'd have to break the election down by counties to actually make that assertion well. The economic ranges in states are vast. There are rich and poor in every state. Poor people vote for both sides remember. Rich vote for both sides.

 

[Rick]

To me it is clear that the states where race still matters a considerable deal are Republican and where it does not, it is Democratic. This is also reflected in the polices of the 2 parties.

That's a pretty ass-backwards statement - race means EVERYTHING to the democrat party. The democrat party is the one which keeps the racial spoils system going in america. Without the race card, the democrat party would win few elections.

 

[Rick]

Funny. Republicans the party of denial.

Affirmative action. Why does the Republicans want to get rid of it? The party of white men, wants to get rid of the law that prevents discrimination against people of non white origin.. wonder why?

You don't know what you're talking about - "affirmative action" >>> IS <<< precisely a system of racial discrimination.

Then we have homosexuals. If Republicans dont believe that there is any discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion, then why are they on the for front of trying to keep and expand discriminatory laws against homosexual peoples? What is next.. the black man or the hispanic man.. or both?

:rofl Gays have managed to get themselves privileges - if discrimination based on sexual orientation were banned, they'd LOSE them.

Race matters on so many aspects of American life.

Right, thanks to libs.

Race matters in legal matters, economic matters and educational matters. It matter where you live and how you live. Blacks have a higher representation in US prisons compared to their part of the population,

That's because they commit more crimes - duh :lol:

lower education scores, and are economically worse off relatively speaking. Their health is worse, because of lack of economic means and so on

Stop your cluess ranting long enough to come up for air. :lol: Blacks are the supercitizens of the US polity. They are discriminated in favor of in employement, higher education, government contracts, and many other facets of american life. Their continued poverty is a consequence of their social pathologues - drugs, gangs, serial impregnation and then abandonment of girls.

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not sure Carter's background from the South is the explaining factor; an electoral map from 1960 with a New England candidate looks very familiar.

United States presidential election, 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya but that was 16 years and several race riots earlier. A Northern Democrat wouldn't have won all those southern states in 1976.

Is your suggestion that poorer states lean Dem and richer states go Republican? That would make some intuitive sense; but in recent elections, weathier states (per capita) have gon Dem and poorer state Republican, generally speaking.

Historically the Democratic Party was viewed as the party of the Little Guy and the Republican Party was viewed as the party of business. While the parties may not necessarily be viewed the same way today, they were for most of the 20th century.

You think it is simply a matter of demographics and not related to fundamental changes in party platform?

I'm not so sure. The Reagan revolution ushered in a seismic change in the Republican party with a new emphasis on the religious right as an integral part of its platform, a shift that if anything has grown more pronounced over time. In other words, that was when the cultural war became a dominant theme in Republican politics. The southern bible belt moved into the Republican fold while the more liberal NE and West are becoming less republican.

I think that the party platforms changed in response to changing electoral maps, rather than the other way around. The sole exception to that may be the civil rights movement.

When the Republican Party was viewed as the party of robber barons in the 1950s-1960s, they simply could not win elections until they appealed to populist social sentiments (the Christian Right). When the Democratic Party was viewed as the party of the Rust Belt and union thugs in the 1970s-1990s, they could not win elections until they convinced the voters that they could be trusted with the economy.

Policies constantly shift as demographics shift. For example, the Southwest (including CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, and TX) will probably become much bluer as it becomes much browner. My prediction is that the Democratic Party will become much more globalist and cosmopolitan in an effort to keep the new base of their party, whereas the Republican Party will become much more nationalistic and inward-looking as they begin to write off these states.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't know about that. You'd have to break the election down by counties to actually make that assertion well. The economic ranges in states are vast. There are rich and poor in every state. Poor people vote for both sides remember. Rich vote for both sides.

True, and of course we are talking in generalities here. But also true that the states associated as "red" states in recent decades - South and Midwest, generally have lower per capita incomes than the Blue states.

 

[PeteEU]

Good grief. You know little about America and even less about the Republican party, if this post is any indication.

By the way . . . who was the first non-white European head of state?

Oh am I... very well.. lets look at some facts.

In 2002 this report came out.

BBC NEWS | Americas | More black US men 'in jail than college'

Impressive. Wonder why.. are they just lazy or maybe not getting the same breaks as whites?

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race

Crime statistics.... considering that only 12% of the population is black, then having 50% of all homicides .. impressive equality there. Why are blacks either more inclined to a life of crime or seem to get arrested and convicted for said crimes? Is it because they are genetically made to be criminals?

Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Unemployment statistics... blacks have double the unemployment rate of whites, and that is despite a lower level of participation in the statistic.

The statistics go on and on. You can deny as much as you want, that there is not a racial inequality in the US, but the statistics prove the opposite. Hence the anti-discrimination laws are needed.. just think of what it would look without them!

Listen I aint saying that it is apartheid part deux in the US far from it, and I admit it is FAR better than it was 20+ years ago.. hey you elected a black man as president, that really shows a maturity and an evolving society.. especially considering it is 50 years ago that blacks were not allowed to piss in the same toilet as whites in many states.

But I can not stand by when Americans (especially on the right) keep claiming some sort of racial harmony and equality in the US.. it is simply no where near the truth and is basicly denying the facts. Yes there are problems in US society and they are based on racial lines. It is a matter of statistical fact.

As for the Republican party. What is there to know? They oppose gay marriage aka are for open discrimination against a large minority. They want to get rid of the legal framework that forces racist to accept people of colour.. that sounds to me like they want to go back to the "good old days".

No matter how you spin it, the Republican part has gone out of its way to discriminate against minorities with out being called on it. Vote caging to the extreme, well knowing that doing this will effect minorities (people who don't vote for you any ways) far more than it will effect your own base. The whole gay marriage thing.. pure utter discrimination. Put black instead of gay, and you will understand the utter stupidity of the rights argument.

The Republican party is the white man's party.. nothing more nothing less. 7 black reps at the convention... kinda damaging to the image of being a "peoples" party no? How can a party claim the high moral ground on racial issues when it is almost entirely of one colour...

Gone are the days where the Republican party stood for freedom of choice, and as minimal melding in your lives as possible. Today it stands for only for freedom of choice if the party agrees, and it is trying to meddle in your affairs constantly. Lets look at the present republican party ideas..

Warrentless wiretaps? Sure go ahead, after all you have nothing to hide right?

Lock up people without trial for years? Sure they aint American any ways so why should they have the same human rights we are fighting for...

We stand for peoples rights... unless you are a homosexual of course.. oh and a Muslim. And if we can get away with it.. also all those commies!

The Republican party.. the party of denial and hypocrites.

As for the attempt to divert attention away from the US.. name one European country where at least 12% of the population is black. And before you or others go all defensive and attack me and Europe to divert attention away.. Europe aint much better when it comes to its citizens of "different ethnicity", but the thread was about the US so if you want to debate Europe.. start a thread.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh am I... very well.. lets look at some facts.

In 2002 this report came out.

BBC NEWS | Americas | More black US men 'in jail than college'

Impressive. Wonder why.. are they just lazy or maybe not getting the same breaks as whites?

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race

Crime statistics.... considering that only 12% of the population is black, then having 50% of all homicides .. impressive equality there. Why are blacks either more inclined to a life of crime or seem to get arrested and convicted for said crimes? Is it because they are genetically made to be criminals?

Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Unemployment statistics... blacks have double the unemployment rate of whites, and that is despite a lower level of participation in the statistic.

None of this on its face indicates systemic racism.

It does, however, indicate that affirmative action, necessary or not, is an abject failure for what it was supposed to be.

Why preserve a system that doesn't work?

As for the Republican party. What is there to know? They oppose gay marriage aka are for open discrimination against a large minority. They want to get rid of the legal framework that forces racist to accept people of colour.. that sounds to me like they want to go back to the "good old days".

No matter how you spin it, the Republican part has gone out of its way to discriminate against minorities with out being called on it. Vote caging to the extreme, well knowing that doing this will effect minorities (people who don't vote for you any ways) far more than it will effect your own base. The whole gay marriage thing.. pure utter discrimination. Put black instead of gay, and you will understand the utter stupidity of the rights argument.

The Republican party is the white man's party.. nothing more nothing less. 7 black reps at the convention... kinda damaging to the image of being a "peoples" party no? How can a party claim the high moral ground on racial issues when it is almost entirely of one colour...

Gone are the days where the Republican party stood for freedom of choice, and as minimal melding in your lives as possible. Today it stands for only for freedom of choice if the party agrees, and it is trying to meddle in your affairs constantly. Lets look at the present republican party ideas..

Warrentless wiretaps? Sure go ahead, after all you have nothing to hide right?

Lock up people without trial for years? Sure they aint American any ways so why should they have the same human rights we are fighting for...

We stand for peoples rights... unless you are a homosexual of course.. oh and a Muslim. And if we can get away with it.. also all those commies!

The Republican party.. the party of denial and hypocrites.

As I said, you know nothing about the Republican Party other than slogans.

As for the attempt to divert attention away from the US.. name one European country where at least 12% of the population is black.

I didn't say "black"; I said "non-white."

Europe aint much better when it comes to its citizens of "different ethnicity", but the thread was about the US so if you want to debate Europe.. start a thread.

Yeah, well, fix your own wagon before berating ours.

 

[Sir Loin]

None of this on its face indicates systemic racism.

It does, however, indicate that affirmative action, necessary or not, is an abject failure for what it was supposed to be.

Why preserve a system that doesn't work?



As I said, you know nothing about the Republican Party other than slogans.



I didn't say "black"; I said "non-white."




Yeah, well, fix your own wagon before berating ours.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww…………….you…………………..bad………boy!! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew :rofl just consider yourself put on ignore and anything else you say from here on out is a “personal attack” :2rofll: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew you!!!:spin:

 

[PeteEU]

None of this on its face indicates systemic racism.

It does, however, indicate that affirmative action, necessary or not, is an abject failure for what it was supposed to be.

Why preserve a system that doesn't work?

And you base that on what? Why do you think that affirmative action does not work? Are you also against the actions of the US government in the 1960s to force racist white states into mixing the races in schools, buses and so on?

Do you really think that without affirmative action that you would have a black president today? No I am not saying that Obama benefited from affirmative action, I am saying that the American white populations attitude towards non white people has changed because of affirmative action. It has forced them in many areas of the country to mix with non whites, and that changes attitudes.

But let me ask you this. Do you think that if there had been no affirmative action laws, that blacks and all others who benefited from said laws would be in a better or worse situation than they are today?

As I said, you know nothing about the Republican Party other than slogans.

Again, what is the the Republican Party then? Define it.

The Republican party as it stands now is a slogan party, is the party that's against big government unless it is the one doing the big government. It is the party that is for personal freedom and less government, yet wants to ban gay marriage and curb basic freedoms of people. What is the Republican party if not those things? The party of financial conservatism? Where exactly the last few decade has the Republican party been anywhere near this?

I didn't say "black"; I said "non-white."

Then define "non-white". Are Turks non whites? What about Poles? Russians? Spanish? Greeks? We can agree that people from Asia can in some if not many cases be labled as "non-white", but the only country that has a large portion of "Asians" is the UK, and yes here there are local, regional and national politicians of said "race". Hell there are even Lords and Lady's. Is it good enough? Hell no, their representation in politics is just as horrible as the black representation and the hispanic representation in the US.

Yeah, well, fix your own wagon before berating ours.

LOL classic avoidance. If you want to discuss Europe's lack of integration with its minorities fine lets do that, but dont tell me that I cant debate the US denial of its own racial and ethnical problems, that you and others (especially the US right wing) seem to totally ignore, yet exploit at every turn they can if it is for political gain.

 

[JMak]

And you base that on what? Why do you think that affirmative action does not work? Are you also against the actions of the US government in the 1960s to force racist white states into mixing the races in schools, buses and so on?

Why do you think affirmative action doesn't work?

I know that it does not work in one way - college admissions. How do I know this? Look at the University of California system after their statewide Proposition eliminated affirmative action in admissions. In a nutshell, minority graduation rates increased while minority drop-out rates decreased. Why did this happen? Minority students who had, with the aid of AA programs, been admitted to the first-tier institutions in that system were no longer being admitted to UCLA and Berkeley. Rather, they were being admitted to institutions, such as UCSD and UCSB, better matching their academic preparation. Consequently, students were no longer mismatched. They were matched properly with institutions and graduating.

No, what do you think are the reasons that affirmative action programs don't work? :roll:

Do you really think that without affirmative action that you would have a black president today? No I am not saying that Obama benefited from affirmative action, I am saying that the American white populations attitude towards non white people has changed because of affirmative action. It has forced them in many areas of the country to mix with non whites, and that changes attitudes.

What this says about the disproportionate number of blacks committing crime or failing to graduate high school...well, I don't know.

But let me ask you this. Do you think that if there had been no affirmative action laws, that blacks and all others who benefited from said laws would be in a better or worse situation than they are today?

Well, we know for sure that many minorities who were "advantaged" by AA programs were actually disadvantaged as they dropped out of college and didn't return.

And who knows how things would have otherwise turned out. You're relying purely on speculation.

The Republican party as it stands now is a slogan party, is the party that's against big government unless it is the one doing the big government.

Fair point.

It is the party that is for personal freedom and less government, yet wants to ban gay marriage and curb basic freedoms of people.

False. I mean, you can arrive at that conslusion when you ignore the actual arguments being made by Republicans so you can so caricature them this way.

Bottomline, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Hence, they are incarcerated at disproportionate rate.

It's as simple as that no matter if you want remove accountability from individuals for committing crime and instead blame white racism.

 

[Sir Loin]

Jmak, Pete is a untalenetd shill and for over a year all I’ve seen of him is his backside as he complains that! You have to treat him with kid gloves or he starts to whine and cry that you are too mean for this little foal.

However I just had to point out his hackerey.............

Are you also against the actions of the US government in the 1960s to force racist white states into mixing the races in schools, buses and so on?

Tell us oh mighty learned Pete, which party of "racism" was it that was in charge of those racist white states in the 60s? Tell us Pete since you are so versed in this topic about the "racist" republican party, which party made the Civil Rights act of 1964 pass and come to fruition? Hmmm, I wonder which party Al Gore's father was a part of that lead him oppose the Civil Rights Act? Which directly resulted in him losing his senate seat? That famous governor that stood on the steps of the college in Alabama and tried to stop black students from entering he was a.........republican..............eh Pete?

You remain a poor sodding hack.