This single sentence has to be the stupidest thing I've read all day. So one day the Democratic party woke up and said "lets switch the script and be the party of equality"...? It doesn't fucking work like that unless you can get people to forget history. You know, that tidbit about blacks are property and can't have basic human rights because they considered them subhuman. Yeah, we'll just forget about that so people of color will embrace us. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
Yep you're hitting the nail on the head. You don't go by "what sounds more dangerous" when there's actual data to compare. That's how you determine the reality of things. You judge by what the facts say. Turns out that all that hyperactive training and culture about how cops have such a dangerous job is a bit loaded. Facts are that your more likely to die working as a taxi driver or pizza delivery guy than a cop. It's just the reality. And yes, you could say I've been in a few fights lol. That's kinda the point of the whole police brutality thing. They act as if they're suiting up for war but they really don't have that dangerous of a job all things considered. Sure there's danger, but the entire "going to war" culture is not realistic.
You're just ignorant of the facts. Here's some more education... Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms? | Live Science https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...n-two-parties-switching-their-main-ideologies How Democrats and Republicans switched beliefs [Opinion]
I disagree. I believe you drank too much koolaid. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
There's nothing to disagree about. Its just the facts. Whether you believe in them has no meaning to their existence. You're just being stubborn. And yes, dems aren't angels. Bill Clinton was calling for cops upon cops upon cops. Dems have abused the minority communities for cheap political points too! I'm not blaming only republicans, although they are most times who is standing in the way of reform.
Facts and stats are two different things brother. Your stats are correct , however, the correlations you draw are irrelevant and unfounded.
Well I guess I'd say they're not unfounded. I've only provided countless stats. Sure the lone stat can be misleadimg, but when you compile the data, when you compile all the stats, it leads you to the overwhelmimg reality that there most definitely is disparity within the system. When you look at our history its easy to see why. When you look at the current situation its easy to see why. You've yet to provide a counter fact or explanation, yet tell me that all the links and data that I've posted isn't enough. You're not being realistic. What I've posted is only a fraction of what's out there. If you were to talk to an expert they'd be able to explain it even better. The data is coming from research papers, newspapers, or governmental agency reports. Not Twitter or Facebook. I don't do that stuff.
I read the first two links... The third is null and void because it's an opinion piece. Even says it in the link. I can start posting links to Tucker Carlson if you'd like. The first link only pertains to business views by both parties and how they switched during the late 1800s. Nothing to do with oppression over blacks or the views on said matter from either side. The second link takes me to a "q and a" website where anyone can answer someone else's questions. Not sure what the point of posting that was. Either your reading comprehension is horrible or you just aren't reading, in full, what you post about. Maybe step away from vox, and graphs made by Harvard students, and actually look at the hard data yourself. You saw the FBI data. Whites are twice as likely to be killed by a black, as opposed to a black being killed by a white. But....whites make up 70% of the population, shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't whites be killing black people 5x more than they are? Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
Ya, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks. That still doesn't speak to the systemic racism. No one is refuting the fact you're stating, they're just not mutually exclusive. And will someone please explain to him how our parties have switched? How & Why the American Political Parties Switched Ideological Platforms America the unusual: Where else have the major parties switched positions on the political spectrum? | MinnPost Paper attached detailing the switch. Because theres so many more whites than blacks (249mil whites; 43.5mil blacks in 2017), whites should be the group with the greatest number of deaths by homicide. Blacks are very proficient in killing their own kind, but not very much so at killing outside their race, especially when looking at the sheer number of people outside their race. Whites are killing blacks at about the same rate that they kill other whites, but blacks are killing whites at a much lower rate than they kill other blacks. White on white.. 2,681 ÷ 249mil whites = 0.0000107 0.0000107 × 43.5mil blacks = 468 anticipated white on black homicides 264 actual white on black homicides. 264 ÷ 468 = 0.564; whites kill blacks at 56.4% of anticipated proportionality Black on black... 2,627 ÷ 43.5mil blacks = 0.00006039 0.00006039 × 249.5mil whites = 15,037 anticipated black on white homicides 576 actual black on white homicides 576 ÷ 15,037 = 0.0383; blacks kill whites at 3.8% of anticipated proportionality Comparing the proportions in which each race kills within its own group, and then outside their group, blacks really do take it much easier on whites. There's 5× as many whites, but there's not 5× as many black on white homicides as there are white on black homicides. The real stat of significance is the black on black homicide rate, but that's been observed and studied before. Again though, its not an excuse for systemic racism, in fact much of it is a by product of it.
And will some please tell this human that he believes in myths? Congrats on finishing your koolaid dood. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
Oh man, prager U is not good. Not correct. The fact is that Americas parties switched identities from what they were during the civil war. " A short timeline of the general progression of the two major political parties: late 1700s: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Early 1800s: The Anti-Federalists renamed themselves the Republican Party and would eventually become the Democratic-Republican Party 1815-1824: The Federalist Party collapses, causes the D-Rs to split into several factions By 1832, it's the Democrats vs. the Whigs. The D-Rs under Andrew Jackson dropped the 'Republican' from the name and became Democrats 1853: Fall of the Whig Party, rise of the Free Soil Party 1860: Democrats still exist, Lincoln runs and wins as a member of the Republican/National Union party, which had just been formed after the demise of the Whigs 1861-1869: the Civil War and the aftermath of the war happens Since 1869: the modern Democratic and Republican parties are created Now, you're asking about something that political scientists call "political realignment," and yes, it has happened multiple times. Political realignment happens when partisan members shift their political alignment from one party to another and stay with their new party; definitionally, it's a "profound long-term switching of party identification." Political scientists generally recognize four realignment periods in modern US history, and possibly a 5th: 1860: Election of Abraham Lincoln, Realignment on Slavery Issue (North vs. South) 1896: Election of William McKinley, Realignment on Industrial vs. Agricultural Issue 1928 or 1932: Onset of the 1932 Realignment/Election of FDR, Realignment on Depression and the "New Deal Coalition" 1964 or 1968: Election of LBJ/Richard Nixon, Realignment based on Civil Rights Movement/Southern Strategy 2008: Election of Barack Obama, The Obama Coalition (not yet recognized or widely taught, but being percolated around in academic circles as a possible fifth realignment period; controversial because we're not really sure if there are any long-term vote changes from the Obama coalition yet). " Is it true that the Democrats used the be the conservative party and the Republicans used to be the liberal party? " I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate. Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general. The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business. The democrats were the more tradition-minded party. They were also the party focused on keeping taxes low and when it came to promoting commerce, etc... wanted to leave it to the states. Generally speaking, they were the "states' rights" party. The shift started after the Civil War and continued for over 135 years. After the civil war, the republicans started to split into factions generally divided between how deep "in bed" you got with big business, so they developed a conservative business wing often at odds with with the more progressive wing. The democrats pretty much stayed the states rights party and were marginalized at the national level for several decades. Key points in the shift to the structure we know today: 1896: William Jennings Bryan incorporates the Populist Party vote, giving the democrats a sizable left wing on economics that it didn't have before. 1912: Theodore Roosevelt breaks from the republicans and runs as the candidate of the Progressive Party - this makes the republican progressive wing - once a third to a half of the republican coalition, much less committed to the party going forward and they never really reconcile. Republican leadership comes more and more from its conservative wing after that. 1932-45: Franklin Roosevelt essentially adopts most of the old Progressive platform and pretty much incorporates that whole vote into his Democratic coalition. This puts the party on a collision course when it comes to social policy. 1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites. By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas. The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for president in 1968. 2000: The process is 98% complete. By this time liberals are in the democrats and conservatives in the republicans for the most part. There are more complexities within and after that but those are the major turning points. The current situation we have was solidified during the Lewinsky scandal of 1998 and the ensuing 2000 election. So you can see this was a very, very long process. Circa the late 1990s you saw the last generation that had republican liberals and democratic conservatives. They are all purged now, with only a few outliers still in the democratic party like Senator Manchin in WV. The republicans have no more liberals; they were all purged in 2006 and 2008. " Word of advice. Stay away from prager, they are full of misinfo.
Word of advice, stay away from Vox, wherever you got that Ferguson meme, the opinion pieces you share as fact, the "q and a" sites you frequent where anybody can answer, etc. That's a two way street... You saying you're a teacher doesn't surprise me. Your leftist views are perfectly in line with your liberal colleagues. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
Ill tell you what, Ill make you a deal. You stay away from FOX and Prager U, and I'll stay away from Vox, and Quora (which have experts that provide much of the data, like the link I gave) or whoever you think that I cited was bogus. BTW, the DOJ found the Ferguson Police dept to routinely engage in racially targeted discriminatory policy against the black community, the stat says "Missouri Attorney General" right on it and the population isn't 98% black. But I agree that Vox at least is somewhat less of a reputable source, just like FOX and Prager U are total misinfo (except for Brett Baier sometimes, and Shep Smith when he was on). The papers I've posted aren't politically biased though. I'm not pulling my stuff from Twitter or Facebook. I can find the data without using a far left leaning media outlet, they just happened to be giving accurate info, so I added. But Ill stay away from Vox and Quora or whoever you're upset about if you stay away from the misinfo guys. Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri No, I'm not a history teacher. The reason it was in quotes was because someone else other than myself wrote it and I wasn't trying to take credit. In fact the comment was from one of the links I gave earlier. What opinion pieces have I shared as fact? Just because someone writes an opinion piece based on factual events doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Do me a favor, the next time you're confronted with an overwhelming majority of data pointing to the obvious, don't flail like a child when you're proven wrong. Just accept it like an adult and carry on knowing that you're slightly less stupid now than you were a second ago.
The fact remains that almost all politicians who were associated with the klan were Democrats. Interestingly Senator Byrd (D-VA) used the N word in 2001 and was reelected after that. Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia
You are literally drunk on koolaid. I never said Ferguson was 98% black, I said it is 68% black and that is accurate. You can't even be troubled to read in full what others post. All the opinion pieces you have shared. Opinion pieces aren't facts. They may present facts, but with the writers interpretation of said facts. Get real. Seeing as how you won't actually read my posts I'm going to stop wasting my time typing to you. Good luck with your white guilt and all that. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.
Lol. White guilt is a made up term. Why should whites feel guilty about shit that happened before they were born? If your dad rapes a woman, should you be shamed for the rest of your life? I’m not gonna shame the child of a rapist. You shouldn’t try to shame whites for something their great grandparents may or may not have done.
Dood, you are preaching to the choir. I am very aware that white guilt is bullshit. I was being facetious. Today's Forcast... Partly Cloudy With A Chance Of Amber.