Racist Republicans Flocking to Cain

[Anonymous]

The legacy of Lincoln should make blacks skew Republican, but FDR brought lower income people, including most blacks, into the Dem Party. After WWII, Strom Thurmond started a movement of anti-civil rights politicians out of the Dem Party, and Nixon's southern strategy accelerated the movement.

So there is solid historical basis for seeing a pro-black/anti-black tendency along Dem/GOP lines. That is by no means a blanket accusation that all conservatives are racist, just an explanation of a statistical tendency.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Do you deny that their are Dems who wouldn't vote for a candidate because he/she is a Morman/Catholic/Jew/African-American/Caucasian/Insert word of your choice. What is your point? There are bigots on both side of the aisle. Neither party is immune.

I don't deny that, but I am not starting threads claiming that there aren't any racist or bigoted Democrats. BTW, Democrats elected a Catholic and an African-American as their presidential nominee and those individuals were subsequently elected President. They remain the only Catholic and African-American presidents. A Jew was selected as the vice-presidential candidate. A Mormon is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. So, while bigots exist within the Democratic Party, they are marginalized. The Republican nominees are exclusively White, Protestant, Males (selected entirely on their abilities).

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Second, instead of just blah blah blah from your personal self-evaluation and your casual judgment of what you see around you, why not look at the data? The studies show that Reps are more racist - i.e., that a Rep is more likely to think less of a black man.

read the entire studies - what do they say about prejudices of Democrats? everyone is prejudiced. dumb.

What are you talking about? What's dumb? What are you saying that they say about the prejudices of Dems?

The point I pulled from the studies is that a Rep is more likely to think less of a black person. Show me something there that says otherwise.

This kind of obstinate ignorance is so disturbing. You encounter it in all kinds of contexts - I just did in another forum here, in a discussion of vasectomies. It's like a huge portion of this country has forgotten that science works, that it produces much better outcomes than pulling ideas out of your ass.

This just brings me back to wishing for a formal split of the country. I don't know how sensible people are supposed to negotiate policy with dedicated anti-rationalists. You don't want any part of our highfalutin experiments, studies, and statistics? You'd rather go with your gut, what your cleric tells you, or whatever the fuck you morons look to? That fine - let's split, and we'll see who does better.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Second, instead of just blah blah blah from your personal self-evaluation and your casual judgment of what you see around you, why not look at the data? The studies show that Reps are more racist - i.e., that a Rep is more likely to think less of a black man.

read the entire studies - what do they say about prejudices of Democrats? everyone is prejudiced. dumb.

What are you talking about? What's dumb? What are you saying that they say about the prejudices of Dems?

The point I pulled from the studies is that a Rep is more likely to think less of a black person. Show me something there that says otherwise.

This kind of obstinate ignorance is so disturbing. You encounter it in all kinds of contexts - I just did in another forum here, in a discussion of vasectomies. It's like a huge portion of this country has forgotten that science works, that it produces much better outcomes than pulling ideas out of your ass.

This just brings me back to wishing for a formal split of the country. I don't know how sensible people are supposed to negotiate policy with dedicated anti-rationalists. You don't want any part of our highfalutin experiments, studies, and statistics? You'd rather go with your gut, what your cleric tells you, or whatever the fuck you morons look to? That fine - let's split, and we'll see who does better.

ok, did the study ask if black democrats are more prejudiced against whites? if not, dumb.

[Anonymous]

"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks.

Why are you getting all upset Man? What percentage of blacks when presented with, equally qualified white candidate, and a black candidate vote for the black candidate? It really goes both ways but that article you cited failed to look at the opposite end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks.

Why are you getting all upset Man? What percentage of blacks when presented with, equally qualified white candidate, and a black candidate vote for the black candidate? It really goes both ways but that article you cited failed to look at the opposite end.

exactly. clearly Obama benefited tremendously because of his race in the Democrat primaries. He was getting something like 90%+ of the black votes in states where a huge percentage of the Democrat primary voters were AA. But who cares? Duh. Does that make those voters prejudiced? I would think so - but I also don't think it makes those voters bigoted.

But if you want to start your own country and call it Moronville, please feel free and hopefully others like you will join you.

[Anonymous]

But if you want to start your own country and call it Moronville, please feel free and hopefully others like you will join you.[/quote

]

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:ok, did the study ask if black democrats are more prejudiced against whites? if not, dumb.

Here's an idea: why don't you read them? I'll answer for you: because you don't actually want to understand anything better, to come closer to truth. You just want to make observations that you're stupid enough to consider clever.

The OP's claim is that Reps aren't racist against blacks. The question of who is more racist against whites is irrelevant to that question.

Go find data that show that Dems are more racist against whites; it won't surprise me terribly.

Sorry - it actually WOULD surprise me terribly were you to trouble yourself to find data in support of anything.

[Anonymous]

any progress yet in starting your own country?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you getting all upset Man? What percentage of blacks when presented with, equally qualified white candidate, and a black candidate vote for the black candidate? It really goes both ways but that article you cited failed to look at the opposite end.

Because 1) PP doesn't want to engage in real argument, but just to make stupid points and congratulate him/herself; and 2) no one has said anything about racism against whites.

Look at the lunacy of this thread. OP comes on to say "Reps aren't racist against blacks, as proven by [stupid anecdotal evidence], and people who say otherwise are lame." We respond by establishing that that's wrong on all counts, and what's the retort? "Why are you guys always complaining about racism? Your guys probably hate whites as much as ours hate blacks."

Maybe that's so and maybe it's not (you haven't bothered to look for a thing to support your claim). Regardless, the strangely defensive point OP was making is demonstrably wrong, and PP's discomfort with that fact doesn't make it less so.

[Anonymous]

Someone will let the cat out of the bag(ie he's black) and that will be that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a republican and I like Cain because of his positions--not because he is African-American. Other repubs dislike Cain because of his positions--not because he is African-American. It is that simple. The eventual candidate will get the nomination based upon ideals and positions not because of race. You demean everyone's intelligence--including yours--when you try to tie everything to an issue of race. Enough already.

well said. exactly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks.

Why are you getting all upset Man? What percentage of blacks when presented with, equally qualified white candidate, and a black candidate vote for the black candidate? It really goes both ways but that article you cited failed to look at the opposite end.

Do you mean one justifies the other?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks.

Why are you getting all upset Man? What percentage of blacks when presented with, equally qualified white candidate, and a black candidate vote for the black candidate? It really goes both ways but that article you cited failed to look at the opposite end.

Do you mean one justifies the other?

In a sense one does justify the other, but only in one direction. White discrimination has disadvantaged blacks in the US since before it was the US. For blacks not to react with resentment would be superhuman. To resent the resentment, on the other hand, is a denial of history.

[Anonymous]

Man you do sound a tad unhinged about this one. This is DCUM. You walked right into the trap. OP doesn't want to discuss the issue.